Note that Giuliani only got his % bump by taking one county @50%. Beyond that, he’s in 6% or lower numbers…

I’m very disappointed by the Ron Paul #s I’m seeing. 10% just isn’t enough of a jump over his poll #s… I was hoping for at *least* 15%. *sigh* It’s just so sad to me to see all of these people voting for that clown Huckabee. There’s just so many damn ignorant people in this country and they are so easy to control.

On the other hand I am happy Obama beat Clinton.

Jason,
Although I can’t say that Romney being Mormon doesn’t hurt him, I will say that it isn’t surprising that populists won for both parties over party establishments. Iowa is a populist state. Now whether either can maintain this is question mark as many Iowa winners have not gone on to win.

As for Huckabee over Romney, I will say that I would much rather have a Baptist preacher than a flip-flopping Country Club Republican but that’s just me. It’s funny that old school conservatives get so scared of Huckabee because unlike Romney he actually believes what he says. Maybe you shouldn’t have gone after Religious conservatives if you never wanted them. You reap what you sow.

Also sad to see McCain not beating Thompson. But McCain wasn’t really going for Iowa anyways.

You have to remember the Iowa RNC tried to block Ron Paul from the beginning, so he was actually running as an independent in a strictly regulated caucus. We’re satisfied with 10-12%, considering Rudy is the Neo-Con’s darling boy and got 6%. Iowa church folks were apparently hoodwinked. Huckle-berry is a religious fake, being much more aligned with Freemasonry and the New World Order than true Christianity. It’s easy to spot these fakes now. There’s been one in the White House for 7 years.

For my part, Iowa lived up to my expectations if not to my dreams.

Throughout my life, I have never had much interest in democracy and have generally despised the cesspool politics associated with it. For this reason, I haven’t clue as to what, if anything beyond the obvious, the Iowa results mean, nor am I going to waste my time trying to figure them out or put any kind of spin on them.

On a gut level, I really like the poetic justice of Paul trouncing Giuliani so resoundingly. On the other hand, I was hoping for Dr. Paul to land a solid 3rd place in Iowa and that didn’t happen.

Over all the more politically experienced members of the Ron Paul community seem to be upbeat over the results, which is probably no real surprise.  Nevertheless, I will take my cue from them and remain optimistically hopefull for a continued upward momentum.

Paul’s 10% is 10% of the caucuses, not 10% of the popular vote. May elite pundits didn’t even expect Paul to hit double digits. Now Thompson’s showing was strong, he beat out Paul, but that was to be expected. If Paul came in third or fourth, the world would come to an end.

Lynx - The are quite a few "NWO and food stocked bunker" crowd in the Libertarians, until this is moderated, the Libertarians won’t be a viable third party. But Goldwater was made out as a similar extremist in 1964.

Ron Paul is passionate and supportive of our constitution.  He is honest about making radical changes that will create prosperity instead of debt.  The reasons we broke away from England was  liberty and prosperity.  Let’s not kid ourselves.  Read what Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln write about currency and staying out of international conflict.  Its crystal clear.  We have fallen away from wisdom and now our childrens children our forever in debt.  Thanks to the world wars and the central banks.

Jason wrote in his article "The Ron Paul revolution turned out to be a bust…" 

I totally disagree with that.  Was I hoping for a 3rd place finish?  Sure.  But finishing with 10% of the vote, only 3 % short of 3rd place is no bust considering the odds stacked against him in this race.

How many other candidates have had to overcome the media bias and name-calling that he has?  None.  He came close to beating Thompson and McCain in a race that they have been given nothing but favorable media attention and he has been given nothing but a hard time. 

Let the media spend months calling Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and McCain "kooks" and "un-electable" and we’ll see how high they poll.  I feel like he’ll do better in New Hampshire although Obama’s strong showing will probably pull some of his Independent voters. 

The media elects our presidents.  It’s sad but true.

Having said that, I think the most important thing to take away from last night was the turnout of the Democratic voters.  It was twice that of the Republicans.  Yes, Huckabee won big, but Obama, Edwards, and Clinton EACH had twice the number of voters than he did in a state that is historically 50/50 when it comes to Dems and Repubs.

America is ready for change.  They showed last night that they are not going to elect another neo-con Republican into office.  If Republicans don’t wake up and get their head out of the sand then this fight is already over.  That’s why I contend that Ron Paul is the only chance the Republicans have at beating the Dems in a national race.  People want change, and Ron Paul is the only one of them offering it.  Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and McCain are all Bush-clones who offer more of the status-quo, and we saw last night the people are sick of the status-quo.

If you’re a Republican you had better get behind Ron Paul or you’ll be watching Barrack Hussein Obama be sworn in a year from now.  Count on it.

Thanks Christine, that clears it up nicely for me. 

Everyone has to remember that out of all the GOP canidates, Paul spent the least time in Iowa. He instead worked on building a base in Nevada and New Hampshire ect. And Huckabees win can be largely discounted because of the large evangelical presence in Iowa, who would of course highly favor him.

Those of you saying you’d vote for Obama before Paul, that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion.  I’m a life-long Republican and I’d vote for Obama before I’d vote for ANY of the Republicans other than Paul, so I guess we’re even.

But the fact is, 70% of the country is against the war.  The Democrats turned out twice as many people last night as the Republicans.  You say passion is different in the primaries than in the general.  Perhaps, but the Dems turnout was over twice was it was just 4 years ago in the caucus.  You don’t think there’s a correlation to what would happen in the general?  I do. 

People are passionate about this election.  It’s been evident throughout this race already.  The turnout for Democratic rallies have been far greater than the Republican and the money raised has been much more as well.  Last night should’ve been an eye-opener for the Republicans but sadly it won’t be.  They’ll stick to their guns on this "war on terrorism" until it drives them right into the ground.  They’ll get exactly what they deserve.

You may not agree with Paul on all his views, but if you consider yourself a conservative Republican he is the closest thing we’ve got to that.  The Republican party has lost its way.  It has strayed so far from it’s core values that it shouldn’t even be considered the Republican party anymore.  What happened to small government, balanced budgets, free market, no entangling alliances, etc…? 

I don’t understand how someone can claim to be conservative but then trash someone who has traditional, conservative views.  Ron Paul is what the Republican party has always stood for.  These other guys are closer to being a liberal than a conservative.  There is one person in this race who will cut the size of government and cut spending, and that is Paul.  Everyone else, Repub or Dem, will continue over-spending, over-stretching, and further sinking our economy into the ground. 
And lastly PatHMV, I wasn’t using Obama’s middle name as a slander, I was simply stressing that is who our President is going to be.  Had Hillary won I would’ve said Hillary Rodham Clinton or whoever else.  Race has no impact on my feelings whatsoever.  In fact, this country electing a black man as president would do wonders for our perception in the world - I have no problem with that, and welcome that.  His policies on the other hand I don’t necessarily agree with - but the positives he would bring vs another neo-con would far outweigh the negatives. 

C,

I missed this part of you post in my last response, so I wanted to address it:

You wrote: "The GOP unfortunately has already given up way too much ground on economic issues (trying to become economic liberal lites); the last thing we need to do is cede ground on national security by putting up a dove/noninterventionist candidate."

What are we ceding ground on?  The Republican party’s stance has always been that of non-intervention.  The Republican party is supposed to be the peace party.  Republicans have always been elected to end wars, not start them.

Intervening in other countries is not helping out national security.  We had troops all over the world on 9/11, did that help us from being attacked?  We protected Europe and Japan better than we did New York City that day.  National "defense" would be bringing our troops home to "defend" our borders, not Iraq’s.  Getting our troops out of harm’s way and stop inciting the hatred for us in the Middle East is the best way to defend out national security. 

Are you more secure by sitting peacefully in your home and being friendly with your neighbor, or by going over to their house bullying them around, threatening them and forcing your ways upon them?  Which of those two would make them hate you more and want to attack you? 

We’re trying to defeat an enemy can’t.  And the reason for that is because we don’t understand what motivates them to want to kill us.  They’re willing to sacrifice their life to kill us.  They don’t do that because of our lifestyles, they do it because they feel threatened.  You don’t kill someone because you don’t agree with how they live their life, you kill someone when you or someone you love is provoked, threatened, or attacked.  Until we realize that, we will be fighting "terrorism" forever.  Every last one of your civil liberties will be given up before we defeat terrorism.  Once all of our freedoms are gone, what will we even have left to fight for?

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

I wasn’t using Obama’s middle name as a slander, I was simply stressing that is who our President is going to be.  Had Hillary won I would’ve said Hillary Rodham Clinton or whoever else. 

So in the future we can expect you to say Ronald Ernest Paul whenever you refer to other candidates by their full given names? Heh. Color me skeptical.

Tully,

You can remain skeptical all you want, I was using it in the context of him being president.  As in President George W. Bush…

If you want to make something out of nothing go right ahead, but I have not, nor will I ever, make a racial comment in any of my posts.  As I said, the United States electing a black president would be a great statement for this nation.  I do not agree with his political stances but would vote for him before I voted for the neo-con nominee. 

That’s the problem with someone trying to turn nothing into a slur.  It was not so don’t even go there.  If you want to debate on an issue I’m fine with that, but don’t try and paint me as something I’m not.  It seems to me you’re the one uncomfortable with his name, not me.  Maybe that makes you the racist?  Hmm… color me skeptical.

Well clarify his stance for me, then. If the civil rights act, as written, violates the property rights of business owners and individuals, how could a law be written which would make racial discrimination in restaurants, hotels, and the workplace generally illegal without violating those property rights?

You say his opposition to the Civil Rights Act had to do with the federal government over-stepping its bounds. But if the problem with the Act is a violation of the property rights of businesses and individuals, then the states could not pass such a law, either.

Said Rep. Paul:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

Rep. Paul is, in fact, saying that racial discrimination in the workplace should be legal, no matter how abhorrent he may personally find it. This is an extreme version of libertarianism, one to which I am not ready to subscribe, and one which I believe would be very damaging to our country. Certainly the interference in private business relationships is extreme in the instance of the Civil Rights Act, and it is government interference which I do not eagerly endorse, nor should it set as much of a precedent as it has for government involvement in the marketplace.

But where I part ways with Paul is his unwillingness to understand and accept that the harms caused to our country by widespread racial discrimination might ever possibly justify that kind of interference. Our country enslaved black people and then, after freeing them, engaged in a relentless course of discrimination to prevent them from improving their individual lives. This evil retarded us culturally and economically. The market proved incapable of solving the problem in any reasonable time frame. It was appropriate for federal action to be taken, and it has largely proven successful. Racial relations are in fact far better today than they were in the 1950s and 1960s, though obviously we have many problems still to resolve.

But Paul recognizes no other principles, no other values, than the protection of private property and contract rights. Those are important rights, crucial rights to be sure, but they are not the only rights, nor the only values which can and should be protected by our government. Experience teaches us that no one single ideology can successfully be followed to govern as diverse a society as ours. Paul refuses to learn from that experience.

Pat,

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not enhance race relations or improve freedom.  The forced integration increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberties.

The Act gave the federal government power over the hiring and employee practices over every business in the country.  It was a massive violation of the property rights of private property and contract.  The right’s of all private property owners, even those you disagree with, should be respected otherwise we are not maintaining a free society.

You state that Congress had a right to regulate commerce among the states.  I agree, but the Constitution was not written as to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce, it was framed  so that there would be a free trade zone among the states.  The 1964 Act was a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.

The Act not only violated the Constitution and reduced personal liberties, it also failed to achieve its goals of promoting racial harmony.  Employers were forced to hire by racial quota, which have not contributed to racial harmony or advance the goal of a color-blind society.  If anything, it has added to the racial tensions.

Sure, America has made great strides in the past 40 years but this is due to the changes in public attitudes and private efforts, despite, not because of, the Act of 1964.
You said that Paul is "saying that racial discrimination in the workplace should be legal, no matter how abhorrent he may personally find it. This is an extreme version of libertarianism, one to which I am not ready to subscribe, and one which I believe would be very damaging to our country." 

Do you honestly think there is no racism in businesses today?  It may not be "legal" but it is certainly there.  It is compounded by the fact that business owners are forced to hire to meet quotas.  I don’t know about you, but I’m not "less racist" because my government tells me to be.  Good thing they passed that Act back in ‘64 or we’d all be still segregated and using different bathrooms….  C’mon, do you really believe that? 

Tully, drop it on the racial stuff.  Your comment doesn’t even dignify a response.

As for Paul being a conservative vs a libertarian… Ron Paul is MUCH more in-line with the traditional Republican beliefs than any other candidate running today.  That was my point.  If I substituted the word conservative for Republican I apologize, but my point is that he is more "Republican" than the other GOP candidates.

So C, just to clear it up, you do believe we’re attacked because of our beliefs and our lifestyles and not what we do in the world?

I feel that I should save this response because I’ve had to explain it repeatedly- so I can keep it for future reference.

I believe that the leadership of al Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups have rationales for their attacks which are based on US actions in the mideast, but that these are mostly propaganda. Their actual reasons (which are evident in speeches to their internal audiences, in fatwas, and in other writings) bely a desire to gain the power for Islam that is currently vested in Western democracies. The followers of these Islamist leaders are often motivated by both reasons too; to some extent they do feel that the West has interfered in their affairs (and in some cases they have good reason to resent this but they also use it as a scapegoat for all of their problems), and for those who are religious fundamentalists there is also a disdain for Western culture- even to the extent that some of them don’t believe they can coexist with our cultures.

Paulites may be correct when they criticize some neocons for narrowly viewing the conflict as a clash of civilizations (without regard for the blowback effect of US interventionism) but they are incorrect because they take the polar opposite approach and belief that it’s ALL strictly a reaction to our interference. The truth is somewhere in between, but a belief that others would simply leave us alone if we pulled back is terribly misguided. The degree to which the enmity is motivated by our actions is being overestimated, and even the part of it which is related to that isn’t so easily correctable.

Tully, drop it on the racial stuff.  Your comment doesn’t even dignify a response.

Yet you just spent a whole comment before that on the issue of Paul’s views on how the CRA was a racist act, even though it the legal effect was to outlaw racial discimination in public accomodations. Per you (" If anything, it has added to the racial tensions.") it made things worse! Being old enough to remember the times and having many black friends and acquantances who are even older, I beg to differ.

Seems to me that you just want to dodge the point that the gratutious use of Obama’s middle name is a <i>de facto</i> appeal to ethnic  prejudices, regardless of motivations. BTW–"Rodham" is not Hillary Clinton’s middle name. That would be "Diane."

Tully, I didn’t bring up the CRA - just responding to a question thank you.  And I never said it was a racist act, stop putting words I never said into my mouth.  I don’t believe the government forcing people to integrate and forcing equal rights creates racial harmony.  Does that make me a racist?  No.  Should black people have equal rights.  Yes, but not because they’re black, it’s because they are people.

I think ALL individuals are equal.  That means you have a right as a person, not as a black person, not as a gay person, not as a white person, but as a person created by God.  Being black shouldn’t give you anymore rights than being a woman or having blonde hair.  It’s when you lump people into groups that you create division and tension.  And when you force that on people is when you create even more problems. 

What we’re doing now is not working.  Why not pull our forces out and see what happens?

You don’t make that decision without being reasonably sure that ‘what happens’ won’t be worse than it is if you don’t pull out, and you certainly don’t make it when you finally are having some success (even if it’s only tenuous success.)

And frankly, if we can pull this off, I think the type of presence we’ll then have there to maintain the balance of power will be far less noxious for the people of that region than our past policies of propping up dictators- so that’s why I felt that removing Saddam was the right thing to do.

I’m not sure how you can say we’re having "success"?  Because the so-called surge is working?  Working towards what, we are in the middle of a civil war that we have no business being in.  They don’t want us there.  We are fighting a war for oil.  I’m sorry, but it’s not to protect our safety, it’s about money and oil.  Our soldiers deserve better than that.We pulled out of Vietnam when they said it would be a disaster, look at that country now.  Was it bad immediately afterwards?  Yes.  Would Iraq be?  Yes.  But we made it that way.  We have to deal with the repercussions.  We can either face them now, or face them after we’ve lost another 60,000 men.  We are doing nothing but trying to save face over there now.

Pat,

Where did I deny that Paul believes businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate?   If I stated that it was a mistake, but I don’t believe I ever said that.  If you think I did, where’s the quote.

Secondly, neither Paul, nor I, make a "blanket assertion" that racial tensions are higher today than before the CRA.  I said that the tensions have lessened despite the CRA, not because of it, and if anything the CRA did nothing but create added racial tension. 

There are still segregated facilities in the country today.  They may not be spoken of or whatever but the racism is still prevelant.  You claim the CRA should’ve been passed because it forces people to "ACT" a certain way.  You can’t legislate morality, which is essentially what you’re trying to do by forcing equal treatment of people.  Racial discrimination IS, not was as you pointed out, evil.  It still harms our society. 

Your last paragraph is also wrong.  You say I, and Paul, argue against the entirety of the law.  That is just inaccurate.  It is the way it was written.  Because of the poorly written law, it was abused, it was taken out of context from the Constitution, and that is my and Paul’s opposition to it.  You’re trying to create this person that he, and I, are not.  If you don’t support quotas, then you shouldn’t agree with how the Act was written either.  Solving one injustice by creating another one is not the way it should be solved.  Black people’s right’s were essentially put ahead of property owner’s rights. 

Well, first of all, you said, in comment 28:

Where have you heard him say that he "believes it should be legal for a restaurant open to the general public to refuse to serve food to black people."? You haven’t and you won’t.

Glad to see you repudiate that.

As Tully pointed out, the Act didn’t create quotas. Indeed, it prohibits quotas. There is nothing particular in the way the bill was written which allows it to be misused to impose quotas.

You keep saying two different things. On the one hand, you say that Paul’s opposition to the CRA is based on "how the Act was written." At the same time, you say that the fundamental flaw of the Act was that it violates the property rights of private citizens and businesses. There is no way to write something functionally equivalent to the CRA which would not violate what you believe to be the property rights of private citizens and businesses. You don’t oppose "how the Act was written," you oppose the very principle of the Act. If the objection is simply that it is poorly written, you could provide some suggestions for ways to write it better, but which would still do the same thing. You haven’t done that, you can’t do that. You oppose what the Act did, not just how it was drafted.

The Act did limit the rights of private property owners. All laws do that to one extent or another. We prohibit you from using your privately owned gun on your own property to murder some other person, because doing so interferes with the murder victim’s own rights. We prohibit you from dumping toxic chemicals on your own privately owned land because doing so would damage common areas and property owned by others. One presumes that you and Ron Paul are not opposed to all such laws. What is so special about protecting racial discrimination that you oppose laws to restrict that, but not laws to restrict other forms of harm caused by one person to another?a

Again Pat, where did you hear him say he "believes it should be legal for a restaurant open to the general public to refuse to serve food to black people."?

Where have you heard those words come out of his mouth?

He believes the CRA should not have been passed as written. 

J Bradford, if his only opposition to the Act is how it was written, then how, pray tell, could it have been written to make it illegal for private restaurants to refuse to serve black people without violating the private property rights of the restaurant owner?

Where did I deny that Paul believes businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate? If I stated that it was a mistake, but I don’t believe I ever said that. If you think I did, where’s the quote.

So which is it? Does Paul believe businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate, or does he believe that a properly written law could make such discrimination illegal? You’ve now said both things in the course of this conversation.

Just wanted to point out that the "You can’t legislate morality" line is an exact quote from Barry Goldwater, being what he said to explain his being one of the 6 out of 33 GOP senators voting against the CRA in 1964.

By contrast and to emphasize how "traditional conservative" the CRA was considered at the time, Senate Democrats tallied up at 21 out 67 against. 18% GOP "no" vote versus 31% Dem "no" vote. In the House the final vote was 20% GOP against, and 37% Dem against.

Does that mean that the Democratic majority in Congress in 1964 was more "traditionally conservative" than the GOP minority? Wow. Who woulda thunk it?

Not trying to change the subject Tully, trying to make a point. 

Are you here to provide anything of value or just instigate?  Your posts wreak someone in junior high trying to stir up trouble.

Keep posting all you like, this will be the last one I acknowledge.  Although I may have my differences with Pat and C Stanley, they are sincere and polite, and bring thoughtful and valuable conversation.  I wish you would do the same.  Thank you.

Just one last thing Tully, the vote against the CRA wasn’t a conservative or liberal vote - it was a constitutional vote.  We need more politicians who vote solely on that and not on lobbyists or peer pressure.