Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul Gets 16% in PA In the first primary since the Republican presidential nomination became a two-man race, Ron Paul scored 16% of the vote.by George Dance
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
9:30 am - CNN's Election Center 2008, updated just minutes ago, reports that, with 99% of the polls reported, Ron Paul received 128,188 votes (16%) in the Pennsylvania primary.
This is the highest vote Paul has received in a primary to date. (His previous record was 110,000 votes, in California.) It is also double his previous highest vote percentage in a primary (8%, in NH in January).
Pennsylvania is the first primary since the Republican contest became a two-man race, when Mike Huckabee suspended his campaign last month after Sen. John McCain clinched the nomination with primary wins in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi. (Huckabee, who remained on the PA ballot, polled 11%.)
Paul, a Pennsylvania native, has spent most of this month campaigning in the state. The MSM has ignored the Republican nomination race, and no polling has been done on it, since the TX and OH primaries Mar. 5.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 36 thumbs so far
2008 George Dance, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, April 24, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of George Dance only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I wonder what the results would have been if so many papers and internet sources hadn't falsely reported that he dropped out?
Or if even those who reported he was still in the race didn't feel the need to say 'while McCain has CLINCHED the nomination, Ron Paul continues his QUIXOTIC campaign' or words to that effect.
What a novel idea it would be to just describe the candidate positions and leave it to the voters to decide who should 'clinch' a nomination....
Good comments, all. I realize this isn't much of an article - I wanted to get the news out ASAP - and I'll be expanding this with some commentary later today; but I'll make a couple of quick comments. To Flo and Spinnaker: well, the media can't keep reporting that he dropped out now; and while they may still try to ignore him, it's going to be a lot harder. To Brian: I think Huckabee's staying in to keep the evangelical vote (which he'll try to trade to McCain, in exchange for the running mate position), and they know it. The good news is that (1) Paul beat him, meaning they're not the significant factor (here) they hoped to be, and (2) IIRC, Romney stayed on the ballot, too, playing the same sort of game, and he didn't even register; good riddance to him.
Wow, ever notice that Ron Paul is more popular outside his own state of Texas? I think Ross Perot was more popular than this guy. Will Ron Paul run for Governor of Texas?
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-23 12:37:43
Wow ever notice that all the oligarchic players that are screwin up our country come out of Texas? Maybe the big money barons dont want the competition. Oh I forgot this is an even playing field made up of benevolent caring people that follow the rule of law. Sorry I thought I was in China for a minute, or am I?
You're right. You're ALL right. It's the evil MSM that is keeping Ron Paul down! Just look at the way they treated him during the debates. While everyone else got softball questions, he was grilled on his isolationist foreign policy, his support of the antiquated gold standard, his racist newsletter, his association with 9/11 truther, white supremacists, and Holocaust deniers, his belief in insane conspiracies like the NAU and New World Order, and so on.
Wait, he wasn't grilled about any of those things, was he? Huh... maybe he's just not winning because he's a lunatic? Just a thought.
Kyle ... even the statists on this site, such as myself, don't think Dr. Paul is a lunatic. I disagree with the man on almost everything, but he's running an honest, clean, and suprisingly educational campaign and not resorting to the sort of stunt doublespeak that McCain is, lying like Hillary, or promising the sun and moon like Obama.
I may not agree with him, but I certainly won't bash him simply because other nutjobs are trying to use him for their own purposes.
Kyle: you're quite right; Paul's policies have been by and large ignored by the media and the other candidates. The mainstream attention his candidacy has received, when it received any,) has consisted mainly of endlessly parrotted hot-button smears like 'isolationist,' 'antiquated,' 'truther,' 'white supremacist,' 'Holocaust denier,' 'insane,' 'conspiracy,' and 'lunatic.' (I see you've memorized most of them, like a good little parrot, yourself.) That's not the only reason he isn't winning, but of course none of it has helped him in the slightest.
Some of your facts are wrong. This is not the best he's done since his 8% in New Hampshire. According to Wikipedia:
Paul's preference votes in primaries and caucuses began at 10% in Iowa (winning Jefferson County) and 8% in New Hampshire; on Super Tuesday they ranged from 25% in Montana and 21% in North Dakota, where he won several counties outright, to 3% in several states.
So George Dance, care to tell me why my "parrotted buzzwords" are wrong? Also, please inform me of the "mainstream" source where I learned those buzzwords, because I'm dying to know. (I find it hilariously ironic that Ron Paulbots love to assume that anyone who doesn't support the man MUST get all of their news and info from the eeeeeevil MSM. While this is patently absurd, it does seem to be the case that most Paulbots get their info from the internet, particularly MySpace and YouTube).
No, Kylebot, I do not care to waste any more time than necessary on the likes of you. I spent 30 years, as a Libertarian politician, answering the same smears -- that I was a racist, Holocaust denier, etc. -- and that's enough of my life. Unlike Paul, I'm not running for office, and so can tell you, with all due respect, to GFY; and turn to something more productive.
If you want to rant at a "Paulbot," I'd suggest you go to one of the other blogs where you posted the identical Paul-flame yesterday; I'm sure that one or two have responded to you there. But do FO from here, in any case.
wgadget: I said that 8% was the best percentage Paul received in a *primary*. That's true: previously he has only received 3% - 8% in primaries. In caucuses, though, 8% is the lowest he's received (in Colorado); other than that, it's been double digits since Iowa.
The reason for that is simply that far more people vote in a primary, and the larger the vote, the more the Ron Paul vote gets swamped. (The numbers simply aren't there yet.) In caucuses, where less people vote, the rEVOLutionaries can make up in dedication what they lack in numbers, and their percentages there are higher.
The number of eligible voters was the smallest in Montana -- only Republican officials from precinct captain up got to vote in the caucus -- and there Paul got his 25% with just 400 votes.
So Ron Paul DOESN'T associate with the likes of Alex Jones, a raving, delusional madman who spreads anti-government and often anti-Semitic conspiracy theories? He didn't have his name plastered all over a journal with racist trash printed therein? He ISN'T considered a savior by the delusional 9/11 Trooth Movement? He DOESN'T profess belief in crazy John Birch Society conspiracies about the NAU, or one world government led by the UN?
You can tell me to FO all you want. I want to know what's wrong with brining up these issues, which can't really be disputed (as you've proven by your evasion).
If you want to "bring up the issues," then use the "Be a Columnist" link on mine to write your own articles; and then you can flame and libel whomever you want. Who knows; I may even come and play with you there.
With that (since I have your permission), Fuck Off from this discussion.
This isn't a discussion. This is me brining up numerous valid criticisms of Ron Paul, and you and others sticking their fingers in their ears while ranting and raving about how his poor performance is not due to those issues, but due to the media not covering him. This despite the fact that he has appeared on NUMEROUS shows across all networks and was never grilled on the issues I brought up. I don't watch the MSM anyway, and I know more about Ron Paul's platform than any of the other candidates. That's because his followers have infested every virtual square inch of the internet's political sector. The whole "the media is stifling our message" excuse doesn't really fly any more since the advent of the internet, but that won't stop the Ron Paul crowd from trying.
Lloyd: I was a bit surprised to read your comment. I had no idea, since you've never written about such things in your own column, that you, too, find opposition to subsidizing Israel "anti-Semitic," the idea of sound money "antiquated," antipathy to crime and rioting to be "racist trash," and advocacy of constitutonally limited government and opposition to a one-world government to be "crazy."
Since you are a NC columnist, I'll make the same proposal to you that I did to Kyletroll: Please consider writing about those views in your own column rather than trying to use them merely to interrupt the jecting them into the discussion here. I look forward to reading any such columns, and may even reply to one or two, in comment threads where such discussion actually has something to do with the topic under discussion.
I thought this site had a strong anti-libel TOU. At least when I registered, it did. My, how fast those things can change.
But let's get to the point. Here's a question for you, Kyle.
Assuming that the media merely blacked Paul out because of those "valid criticisms", how are the means any different than if they responded to personal conflicts of interest (read: saving face). Besides, most of these "criticisms" as you assert, aren't actually personal reflections on the man, but signs of the times we live in.
I'm sure if you really knew all that much about Paul's campaign, because, y'know, those stinkin' Paultards "have infested every virtual square inch of the internet's political sector", that you would be able to debunk those by yourself. Anyone with half a brain can see that they're obvious smears, especially when the same move is attempted after 12 years (e.g. the racist newsletters).
The only flaw that Paul has is lack of judgement, and that's not so much inherent as it is portrayed and you can't make a blanket attack like that in today's world of politically correct diatribe. That's where the media has exploited him, however. And you know it.
How was he not grilled on the issues, I wonder? Is it so far from the realm of possibility that such measly questions pertaining to electability, the NAU, and "sound money" weren't attempts to portray him as a senile old fool?
Is it somehow fair that these questions should only be asked of Paul?
Maybe if you had done some serious questioning instead of merely trying to incur the wrath of readers on a Paul-friendly site, you would have something to say. But you really have no case.
Why do you think that RP supporters are so angry and from so many different spectrums? They're the fringe because they've been disenfranchised by this "magnificent "government of ours, and for you to deny that they have a right to say what they want really harms your credibility. Why shouldn't we be frustrated? The gov't has ignored us for years!
Corporate media has taken away one of our last outlets to voice ourselves. And when you consider that most Ron Paul supporters are 18-30 years old, perhaps you could understand that they are naturally more dependant on the computer and believe the internet to truly be their last vestige of a free society that they never saw from the beginning.
All in all, I think it a beneficial suggestion to you and all of us here that are trying to have an intelligent discussion to take George up on his offer.
I mean to clarify in the above post that when I say the only flaw that Paul has, I'm referring to the management of his campaign, not his personal character. I'm sure he has quite a number of those, however trivial they may be.
Spence, doesn't something have to be untrue to be considered libel?
As for your defense of the Ron Paul Newsletter... what is your defense exactly? Are you one of those people who pretends that he didn't write it? I believe he was confronted about this back in 1996 and didn't deny what was written. I'd certainly call some of the stuff that was written about MLK, or about black inner city youth, to be racist, and to claim otherwise is some very disingenuous spin.
I find it odd that if Ron Paul had actually written such racist tripe that he would have, throughout the years, also written articles, given speeches totally contrary to such racist crap. For decades, he has been the very epitome of anti-racist in both his support and admiration of Black leaders like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, etc. In fact, he has stated, in no uncertain terms, for decades, that he despises not only racism, but also the collective ideologies that inflame such racist mentalities. I dare say that you have probably never really read any of Dr. Paul’s writings, have you? But you base your assumptions on the writings intent on pure detractions meant to smear as much doubt as possible on the man. What virtuous motives!
Dr. Paul has several friends of African American decent and I have personally seen him embrace and kiss the cheeks Black women and children and embrace Black men with the most sincere and genuine warmth and consideration that it would shame the most ardent liberal and infuriate the most racist conservative. Those are definitely not the actions of a racist, at least not the ones I have met over the years. Your assessment is based solely upon hyped up propaganda that is baseless. The only fault that Dr. Paul might be guilty of concerning those newsletters is that he allowed his name to be used and did not keep as close of an eye upon them as they continued to be released. By the way, there are several people who lent their names to not only newsletters, but to shows, products and campaigns that turned out to be totally contrary to the actual principles embraced by the person whose name was used. Please don’t appear to be so nebulously naïveté in such a ridiculous charge that is not only not relevant any longer, but only serves to show just how dense and closed such a mental position entails. It has already been proved that he did not personally write them, that was debunked long ago, but of course there are those who love to splatter spit because they have no other worthy through in their minds to address.
So, if you don’t mind me saying so: if you cannot address issues based upon verifiable facts then go peddle your rotten tripe elsewhere.
If you had intelligently discerned what I meant by "signs of the times we live in", I probably wouldn't need to respond right now. But of course, that and other perfect realities are often lost in the whims of irrationality.
"Spence, doesn't something have to be untrue to be considered libel?"
Li-bel: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression.
Doesn't say anywhere in the above that it has to be "untrue". The assertion that you made however is that the media wouldn't have any reason to lie to you or make smears to candidates that threatened their interest. So, do you also think the troop surge worked?
"As for your defense of the Ron Paul Newsletter... what is your defense exactly? Are you one of those people who pretends that he didn't write it?"
Pretends is such a harsh, libelous word. I certainly believe he didn't write them, but if you weigh the evidence for a change, then I may take you seriously. Think about it this way.
Why would a racist vote down a congressional medal to Rosa Parks only to put up his own money to sponsor it? What about his defense of arabs and muslims? And the time he even stood up for that crook Romney while they harrassed him over his Mormonism. I think, that if you're a racist to one group of people, you're more inclined to be bigoted to others. And Paul has certainly shown none of that, at least in the public eye.
Furthermore, just because it is not politically correct to accept a donation from a "white supremacist" doesn't mean he should be stigmatized for it. Would I have accepted the money? Probably not, but only as a gesture. Ron Paul doesn't see any need in futzing around with PC gestures like that. That's one admirable quality about him. He doesn't let others influence his strong set of principles.
What next would you like to attack him on? The issue of him bringing in the pork? Alex Jones? Truthers? Don't worry. I got time. We can settle everyone of them if you like- not that it makes a difference.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 George Dance, all rights reserved.