The Iraq War is rapidly losing its prominence as an issue for the 2008 election cycle. The Politico details how "voter intensity" on the topic has dropped significantly, with Members of Congress hearing much less from their constituents about it than in months past. The LA Times also reports the dominant issue in the Iowa Democratic caucuses has shifted from Iraq to healthcare:
The debate marks a shift from only a few weeks ago when the Iraq war was the dominant point of contention among the top Democrats. With violence down in Iraq and Democratic campaigns eager to distinguish themselves before the all-important Jan. 3 caucuses in Iowa, healthcare is emerging as the party's preferred topic.
Why does that matter in Washington state? A wide-open and heavily-watched Presidential race will do much to set the broader tone and issue agenda deep down the ballot, even reaching to the Governor's race and contests for the state Legislature.
If Iraq is not a dominant issue, the environment for Republicans next year will be better than what might have been expected even a few months ago. Meanwhile, notable portions of the Democratic base - such as the netroots - will remain disgruntled with Democrats currently in power for their failure to "end the war." While that most directly affects federal races, such a mood will filter down to state races as well.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 01, 2007 08:11 PM | Email This'Bruce, you said "But no Iraq war hawk can win in November". You have no support for this statement today and even less a year from now when the election will take place. TODAY, all Republican candidates are very close to (or in the case of the Zogby poll, beating) Hillary in direct matchup polls. Hillary's negatives are so high that I think the only way she can win the general election is if there is a viable 3rd party candidate (the same way her husband won thanks to Ross Perot).
The negative views of the Iraq War have been because people could not see that we were WINNING it. But now we ARE winning it, and that will be more apparent as we go through 2008. As I have said before, although the Iraq War may be the number one issue for you and other Ron Paul supporters, it will NOT be the top, or even close to the top, issue in the general election. Immigration is likely to be the top issue, as well as the War against Islamic Extremism--the latter would obviously become even more important if there was a prominent attack between now and the election.
In 90 days, Ron Paul will be a distant memory unless he elects to be a spoiler--he did not answer directly the question asking if he would pledge not to run as an independent candidate. I'm sure Hillary would like to encourage that and follow her husband's playbook (although she may find he takes more votes from Democrats than from Republicans). He may actually be able to be a bigger spoiler against Republicans if Obama gets the nomination than if Hillary does...'
Posted by: Bill H on December 1, 2007 08:11 PMI have to wonder why Paul is rising in all the polls if people are not really concerned about Iraq?
Posted by: Travis on December 1, 2007 08:28 PMI loved the exchange in the CNN/YouTube debate between Ron Paul and McCain, where McCain threw out that straw-man about Paul being an isolationist, and saying that was the cause of the rise of Naziism in Europe. Then he said he had just been with the troops for thanksgiving, and wondered why Paul didn't want to give them more support.
Well, McCain was actually booed, yes booed, by the invitation-only Republican audience for these remarks. Paul mentioned that McCain seemed not to know the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist, and then pointed out the interesting fact that of all the Republicans, Ron Paul got more dollars in donations from active duty military personnel.
I think that if people are losing intensity on this issue, they are still about 70% against it. They may be a little burned-out on the issue, with the MSM and Fox News harping on it all the time, but supporting our occupation there will still be a net negative for any candidate in November.
And Ron Paul does have other big issues that resonate with voters. Defending our borders, eliminating the IRS, preserving our civil liberties, ending entangling alliances that violate our sovereignty, eliminating budget deficits and strengthening the dollar and the economy are just a few.
No, I am not so worried about Ron Paul losing popularity. As Travis points out above, his poll numbers are still rising, and he keeps getting more and more new donors. He has raised over $10.5 million this quarter alone, and that's real money, not blog comments. He can spend that money, and he is.
Face it, even with the recent up-turn, you big government, Neocon, Wilsonian Democracy exporters are still a liability for the Republican Party. I think you should go back to the Democratic Party where you came from. I don't want you to jeopardize the ability of the Republican Party to prevent socialized medicine, eliminate the IRS, and phase out social security.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 1, 2007 08:55 PMRepublican Candidate FL IA NH NH SC
Rudy Giuliani 38% 9% 19% 22% 23%
John McCain 11% 9% 21% 11% 10%
Fred Thompson 11% 14% 4% 3% 13%
Mitt Romney 17% 28% 29% 26% 21%
Mike Huckabee 9% 27% 7% 13% 18%
Ron Paul 5% 3% 4% 2% 3%
Tom Tancredo - 1% - 1% -
Duncan Hunter 1% - 1% - 2%
Other(vol.) 9% 9% 15% 12% 10%
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/
If Ron Paul does not win the nomination, doesn't that say that he and his supporters are NOT the mainstream of the Republican party? Maybe it's the Paulians who are the liability to the party...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on December 1, 2007 10:06 PMTravis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on December 1, 2007 10:06 PMI don't know if you know how party politics work and this is true of both parties. Parties have grandees and the grandees and their supporters will get behind either Rudy, Mitt, or Fred before they turn the keys to headquarters over to Paul/Chavez/Mugabe because a .5% rise in the polls in not a landslide. Similarly, I'm hearing the grandees in the dem party are thinking that Hillary is not as inevitable as she wants people to think. Obama met with Bloomie yesterday. Therezah was the cash of the cash and Kerry campaign. I wonder if we are in for cash and carry part II. After you guys lose, are you going to Disneyland or are you already there?
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 10:16 PMI think that would be missing the more important interpretation... That the GOP is no longer representing mainstream America.
The people want an end to this war and do not want our troops there for a generation or two as the other candidates are suggesting. Paul understands that and has a plan to get them home and make us safer. Mainstream America agrees. Whether the mainstream GOP agress is yet to be determined.
For the sake of limited government... we better hope the mainstream republicans see that ending government health care, ending deficit spending, ending the IRS, are all more likely and more important than continuing this unpopular unwise war in the mid-east.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on December 1, 2007 10:27 PMIt has happened many times that the party activists have been out of touch with the electorate. This often leads to a loss in November.
My argument is that just this has happened to the Republicans. We started to see the writing on the wall in the 2006 election. The message was:
1) The Iraq war is unpopular
2) There are too many Republicans who have corruption issues
3) Republicans have not been fiscally responsible
The people want change. Nominating McCain, Romney or Giuliani will not represent that kind of change to the electorate. They are doomed in November. If the Republicans don't change on these issues, they will lose again in 2008.
Look, Ron Paul won the NY Young Republicans straw poll. He came in second in the Florida straw poll only because the Romney supporters were allowed to vote multiple times. He has been winning straw polls across the state. Here is a link to a list of straw poll results:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
Travis is right @ 6. The samples are all skewed by the fact that they are all Bush primary voters from 2004, a year with record low turnout because Bush was running for a second term and he had no significant primary challengers. Ron Paul is bringing new people in to the party and these are not being polled. The polls are not accurate.
Look, Ron Paul has raised more in the 4th quarter to date than either Romney, McCain or Thompson did in the entire 3rd quarter, and there is still a month left (33% of the quarter) to go. Why is he raising so much money if his poll numbers are really down in the single digits? His average donation size is under $100, so it is not just a few maxing out at $2,300 each. Explain why Ron Paul is bringing in more than Romney, who has poll numbers in the 20's? Why do Ron Paul supporters always outnumber those of other candidates outside debates and other campaign events. The only conclusion is that the polls are messed up.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 1, 2007 10:34 PMI hate to burst your bubble dude. Neither party represents mainstream America. We had an interesting thread about Walmart and tangentally Fredies, Target, and other discount establishments. Most of the people that run the country aren't taking the PCC reusable bags and schlepping groceries home. Simiarly, I ride the bus and I doubt if any of those who run Metro would ever set foot on a bus. I have more faith in the Flex-car people using their product. The disconnect is there, the grandees don't have a clue and we are sliding toward the time that a despot like Paul/Chavez/Mugabe might be acceptable to the masses, just not yet.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 10:35 PMI agree. The mainstream and the two political parties have went their seperate ways the past 100 years or so. Paul seems to be bringing the GOP back to the mainstream america... or at least trying.
As for your despot comment. Please help me understand what you mean by the term despot and then let me know what specific policies of Pauls has led you to beleive he would be one. Thanks.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on December 1, 2007 10:40 PMThey don't want to hear about us winning a war; but if we lose a war, then it's on the front page every day!
Posted by: John Bailo on December 1, 2007 10:44 PMI am not so sure it is media bias. It is just human nature to want to hear bad news. That is why the news will always mention when someone is shot and killed but never mentions the all the days when no one is shot and killed. The company that frauds the public and steals millions will make the news but the company that was honest and donated hundreds of thousands to charity will not.
If there was some dramatic event to signify a big succes in the war like perhaps the president standing on an aircraft carrier with maybe a big banner stating 'mission accomplished' now that would be dramitic and would probably make the news. :)
Posted by: Travis on December 1, 2007 10:51 PMThat is a real challenge for the Republicans especially since they don't like to raise taxes and have not shown how the Government would become smaller. Not so much for the left, because they will raise taxes and increase spending and the size of Government.
Posted by: KS on December 1, 2007 10:56 PMWhen I think of a despot, I think of Hitler. The National Socialists rose to power in a time of uncertainty and economic instability. For an interesting read on the last days of Hitler:
Last Days of a Despot
By Richard Breitman
Sunday, April 14, 1996
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/deathofhitler.htm
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 11:32 PMGood start. You have given me a good understanding of what you think a despot is. Now explain to me what policy Ron Paul advocates or maybe a vote from his 20 year congressional history that leads you to beleive Paul is like Hitler.
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis on December 1, 2007 11:38 PMIf the GOP is not mainstream, and Ron appeals to a LOT more than just the GOP "faithful", then why is he misrepresenting himself as a Republican?
He's not intellectually honest, and neither are most of his followers.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on December 1, 2007 11:55 PMIf we believe that 500 dead U.S. troops in Iraq a year is an acceptable rate (as opposed to 1000), then perhaps you're correct in think Iraq won't matter.
I just don't think people will think that.
Posted by: Daniel K on December 1, 2007 11:56 PMGood questions.
1. I compare him to Hitler because of the support he recieves from Nazis, Aryan Nation types and KKK supporters. Key to Hitler's ideology were racial politics specifically targeted at Jews. But when Jesse Owen, the Black American won an Olympic medal, Hitler refused to acknowledge the win.
2. There are the economic policies and the foreign policy positions as well.
3. This new article from American Thinker puts more issues in context:
"November 25, 2007
The Odd Alliance Supporting Ron Paul
By Andrew Walden
"Watch what you write 'cause American Thinker is taking your excerpts"
Here and there, the mainstream media is noticing the disturbingly enthusiastic support coming Ron Paul's way from distateful quarters. In a November 20 column titled "Ron Paul isn't that scary", LA Times columnist Jonah Goldberg calls stories about Ron Paul's racist and 9-11 troother supporters "overblown", but he does let slip the following:
"Republican consultant David Hill condemns the candidate's 'increasingly leftish' positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul 'too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists.' Film critic and talk radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds 'an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white Supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.'"
Goldberg is the exception....
(An alliance of communist and fascist is not unprecedented. After forming the August 23, 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, Poland was divided. Hitler then had an easy time defeating a French army whose enlisted men were thick with communists under orders from Stalin's Communist International not to fight and whose officer corps was infested with fascists. The alliance ended June 22, 1941 when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Now the Communists are again allied to the fascists both American and Islamic. I wonder what the late W.E.B. DuBois or Paul Robeson would say about their comrades' new KKK buddies?)"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_odd_alliance_supporting_ro.html
As a libertarian, I have a lot of agreement with Ron Paul on many of his non-National Security issues. But in the middle of a war against Islamic extremism, I could not vote for him (and I voted for him in 1988 when he ran as the Libertarian candidate).
Travis, when you get to the point of saying that all of the polls must be wrong, you have to know your candidate is in trouble. Could it be that "all" of the polls are wrong? Sure, it is "possible", but it is EXTREMELY doubtful that they are THAT far off.
Bruce, you said "2004, a year with record low turnout because Bush was running for a second term". This is just factually incorrect. There were more voters in 2004 than there were in 2000 and in fact higher than it has been since Nixon's elections during the Viet Nam War. See this chart Voter Turnout Chart
The GOP has a bigger risk of losing because of the lack of turnout by Social Conservatives than due to the Iraq War, which is why I think Rudy (if he gets the nomination) or Romney (if he does) may very well choose Huckabee as the VP to try to bring them back in the fold. I guarantee you that none of the frontrunners is even considering Ron Paul as VP to try to get the anti-war vote! Iraq will NOT be a significant issue in the general--only among the loonies on the left.
The topic of this thread is the shift of election issues AWAY from the Iraq War. The Dems obviously want to change the topic since it is now obvious that we are WINNING in Iraq. They don't want to look stupid or be reminded that they claimed the Surge would not work and that we had already lost the war. Hillary might even be put in the position of saying she was actually FOR the war before she was against it.
The Dems would like to change the election to be about Health Care--this will continue to be an issue because of the high costs. But if the Reps are smart they will tie those high costs to two Democrat reasons: (1) Trial lawyers causing huge malpractice premium; and (2) Illegal aliens causing huge emergency room costs. These would both resonate with the electorate--especially the latter.
As I have said before, I think illegal immigration will be the top election issue and would only be surpassed by Islamic extremism if there is a major attack before the election.
Posted by: Bill H on December 2, 2007 07:55 AMTwo weeks ago I didn't know who I wanted to be my next Republican president. I still do not--however I know my first choice (second or third)will not be Ron Paul--and the reason is because of the company he keeps. Bruce with his Paul comments on every post at Sound Politics is really a turn-off. Complement yourself Bruce!
Paul is a Libertarian in Republican clothing. Like the Socialist Hillary in her Democrat clothing.
But if he pulls it off I would vote for him before any Democrat on the ballot. Unlike his lack of statement if he would support any Republican who was the chosen candidate.
Posted by: Ken Howard on December 2, 2007 08:58 AMAmericans do want health care reform, they don't want socialism.
Americans do want health care reform, they don't want socialism.
The R nominee will find some excuse, and it will probably be reports that the war is a success. We will find a way to "declare victory" and troop withdrawals will begin, well before 11/08. I think we will be down below 50K troops in July of '08, and few patrols will be taking place, in order to minimize casualty numbers. Jihadis will realize that all they have to do is wait, so they will reduce their attacks. Perhaps this is already happening.
After we leave, the civil war will resume.
This is the same thing they did during the invasion. Instead of taking a suicidal stand against the vastly stronger American foces, the Iraqi troops melted in to the populace, biding their time as the Americans wore themselves out with the occupation, and support for and interest in the war fell in the US.
Attacks on Iran will begin after the 11/08 election, probably in early 2009, whether there is a Republican or a Democratic President. Remember, it was Bill Clinton who launched that big cruise missile attack... His wife would be happy to do the same.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 2, 2007 11:45 AM"We've got a pretty good fix concerning what's on the American mind right now, because the nonpartisan and highly reliable Pew Center has been regularly polling people since January on the issues that matter most to them. In fact, the center's most recent survey was conducted in the days leading up to Wednesday's debate."
"HERE'S what Pew found: By an overwhelming margin, Americans think the war in Iraq is the most important issue facing the United States, followed by the economy, healthcare and energy prices. In fact, if you lump the war into a category with terrorism and other foreign policy issues, 40% of Americans say foreign affairs are their biggest concern in this election cycle. If you do something similar with all issues related to the economy, 31% list those questions as their most worrisome issue. As anybody who has looked at their 401(k) or visited a gas pump would expect, that aggregate figure has increased dramatically since Pew started polling in January. Back then, for example, concerns over the war outpaced economic anxieties by fully 8 to 1. By contrast, just 6% of the survey's national sample said that immigration was the most important electoral issue. Moreover, that number hasn't changed in a statistically meaningful way since the first of the year. In other words, more than nine out of 10 Americans think something matters more than immigration in this presidential election."
***
Paul is a Libertarian in Republican clothing
Ken, nope. Paul is a libertarian LYING about being a Republican because that's the only way he can get any attention..
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 2, 2007 12:31 PMNote that their survey was done in October, prior to the whole host of good news from Iraq. At that time, "In an October Pew survey, 65% of Republican voters said that immigration was very important to their presidential vote".
And, "When asked what is the single most important issue facing the nation, 11% of Republicans cited immigration, according to the October survey. As an issue for Republican voters, immigration trails only Iraq (27%) and terrorism (14%) in importance and is viewed as more important than the economy (9%)."
As I said, my contention is that Iraq is declining as an issue in the election, which leaves terrorism and immigration as the two most important of the remaining issues. I think immigration will be the top issue unless there is another prominent terrorist attack, then terrorism moves to number one.
However, I think the immigration issue and the terrorism issue are connected in that the lack of security at the border makes it easy for terrorists to enter the country and there have been reports of coyotes being paid by terrorist groups to help them get into the U.S.
As to the LA Times article, I lived in LA for 5 1/2 years and they are a very liberal paper. They, like the Wall Street Journal editorial page (which I have subscibed to for years but vehemently disagree with them on this subject) have been an apologist for illegal immigrants for years, so it makes sense that they would want to downplay the importance of this issue.
To the point about CNN's corruption, however--I think all the talk about how CNN was just incompetant in their choice of 11 questions from Democrat activists is beside the point. The point is that CNN chose the thirty-something questions out of 5000 submitted. Whether or not they knew they were from D activists makes no difference, as the author of the article you cited points out, CNN CHOSE the questions. Once they chose a set of questions that represented less than 1% of those submitted, they became CNN's questions--UNLESS they were a representative sample of those submitted, which I have heard no one allege.
Posted by: Bill H on December 2, 2007 02:00 PMI have asked specifically what policies make you think Paul is like Hitler. You have stated his economic and foriegn policy positions. Do you care to expand a little so that the rest of us can understnd how a libertarian and an authoritirian are actually the same? Thanks
Posted by: Travis on December 2, 2007 08:02 PMI would love to when you respond to:
1. Has Paul been a long time associate of Nazis, Aryan Nations and David Duke supporters? Reports are the association goes back at least 20 years.
2. If he receives donations from Nazis, Aryan Nation members and KKK supporters, will he return the donations?
3. Does he disavow support from Nazis, Aryan Nation types and KKK members and supporters?
One really can't get down to the nitty gritty of a true political discussion when there is an elephant, no pun intended in the room.
Posted by: WVH on December 2, 2007 08:28 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol_xH0IODRA
It shows Reagan, Cheney and GW Bush clearly expressing Ron Paul's position on the Iraq war. No nation-building, no entangling alliances, no war without an exit plan.
It proves that Ron Paul's position in the war is Republican. Yes, these video clips were from 1964 to about 2000, but Reagan's remarks were intended to be general positions of philosophy, and Cheney and Bush were actually referring to Iraq or the Middle East.
The response will come: "but 9/11 changed all that." No, 9/11, as many good conservatives have pointed out, was at the end of a long string of attacks that began under other, often Democratic administrations, such as Jimmy Carter's hostage crisis, the Cole bombing, the US embassy bombing, the first WTC attacks, etc. All of these were "blowback" for our failed Middle East policies.
Please. copy and paste this link. Watch the first 5:25, and tell me that Ron Paul's position is not Republican, or not conservative.
Nation-building is liberal Wilsonianism. How did the liberals take over the Republican Party?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 3, 2007 12:25 AMMany voters in the general did not vote in the primary. I think that if you look up primary stats, you will find a VERY low turnout for the Republican presidential primary in 2004.
So the polling samples are all skewed. They are die-hard Bush and Iraq war supporters. You would expect that few of these would be Ron Paul fans. The polls understate his support.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 3, 2007 02:04 AMNow answer my question as to what policies makes you think Paul is like an authoritiarian. The rest of us see him as a libertarian.
Posted by: Travis on December 3, 2007 05:37 AMYou and Ron Paul have both stated that if Ron is NOT nominated, you will not support the Republican nominee.
That, in itself, says neither of you are Republican.
Personally, I'm a Thomspon fan, but if he does not will I will support whomever the eventual nominee is, over Hillary, Edwards, Obama, or the Democrat.
So if you're not willing to support your party - the one your candidate claims to be from - over a party that shares NOTHING on common with you (remember, even Hillary has stated she would withdraw the troops, but would leave security forces there to help out - a la how we got into Vietnam), you're not from the party.
Ron Paul is a libertarian, running as a Republican just to get the attention. If he were a true Republican, he would at least agree to support the eventual nominee...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on December 3, 2007 07:29 AMYou apparently are new at this game. The questions were asked of Brucie and Pudge. Neither gave an official statement from the Paul campaign or Jess Benton the campaign PR person. Michael Medved wrote an open letter and has invited Paul or a representative on his show to answer, no response. I again post the link to the American Thinker article. Respond with an official statement of the Paul campaign and not your wish or opinion. The elephant is still in the room.
November 14, 2007
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Wishing that Paul is not a bigot does not constitute a response.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I think they've answered your questions. I don't think you're going to get an official response from the Paul campaign. His position on racism says everything you need to know. The racists' own words on their websites say it all as well.
Come up with a real beef about Paul. Don't like his position against the war? Don't like his smaller government position? Don't like his non-interventionalism and think it's isolationist? Go ahead. Debate those. Quit with the non-issue. The white supremicists are not running for president.
Posted by: Michelle on December 3, 2007 06:04 PMFirst, I was pleased at John McCain's attack, which he clearly had planned. Not because that sort of stream-of-consciousness nonsense about Hitler and WWII -- when the neocons openly want what they call WW IV! Are we to forget that the first war crime charged at Nuremberg was waging aggressive war?
I mean this: mainstream politicians NEVER attack an opponent they think is far behind. The McCain campaign, we've heard, is worried sick about New Hampshire, and they thought a slam at me would help. Ha! Of course, it only strengthened our forces.
Then, after the debate, Rudy Giuliani walked up to me and said, "Oooh, you sure have a LOT of supporters." It's only the beginning, I told him.
Indeed, he could have told that by the crowd outside after the debate. Mitt Romney had a few people, but no one else did. We, on the other hand, had about 500 enthusiastic revolutionaries, plus a boat, a trolley, and two planes towing lighted signs. As I looked out at the crowd, I thought: the establishment has no idea of what they are facing. We have an army of freedom, prosperity, and peace. As the LA Times political blog noted the other day, the British also thought they had no problem with the Americans--until Yorktown.
But we have an astoundingly short time before the first contests. The Iowa caucuses are on January 3, the New Hampshire primary is on January 8, and Nevada and South Carolina are both on January 19. We have only 30 days to stake our claim to the nomination, and to the new America that restores the ideals of the founders, and leads the world through free enterprise, a sound dollar, the rule of law, and peaceful example. Not through inflation and bombs.
Help me surprise the neocons and all the establishment with our success. Help me build the foundation for the America we all want. Send your most generous contribution: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate. The military-industrial complex, the biased media, the big banks, the Fed, the waterboarders, and the IRS don't like what we're doing. But every good American is applauding us, and daring to hope for a better future.
Please, help me give it to them, to us, to all Americans to come. Keep this revolution growing and winning: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 3, 2007 09:03 PM1. First, I'm a woman. Now if you mean will I stop asking about ties to Nazis, Aryan Nation types and the KKK, No. I guess bigotry is in the same category of bad behavior as spousal abouse.
Those groups mentioned above should be stopped, just like spousal abuse, don't ya think?
2. You say over and over that you are a staunch republican. Do you know of another republican presidential candidate other than Strom Thurmond, David Duke or George Wallace that did not disavow such support? I'd love to have you answer.
3.Here is where we diasgree, Paul will never disavow such support and because of that, yes, the supremecists and Nazis are running for president.
Any how, what are you folks so worried about, it is just me asking questions and a whole group of you supporting Paul responding. What are there now, six or so hard core supporters. Interesting, that there will never be an official response from the Paul campaign. The American Thinker has an interesting discussion of the behavior of Paultards on web sites and their reponse to people who ask questions. What are you folks afraid of?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2007 10:29 PM