Fingers crossed!

Yeah, Matt Y. highlighted this problem the other day -- it has to do with the way the caucuses are actually run, and the side deals candidates make about who their supporters will caucus for if the candidate falls below the viability threshhold (like the Edwards/Kucinich deal in 2004).

It's going to be a bumpy ride. WHEEEEEEE!!!

PS -- BTW, don't look now, but the GOP race in Iowa is also volatile -- here comes Huckabee!

As what sometimes feels like the left blogosphere's only Clinton supporter, I am duly chastened. Especially after poking around a little to see if the Pew poll was cherrypicked and finding that, no, none of the late-2003 polls put Kerry anywhere near the lead, either in the early states or nationally.

Still think HRC's gonna win, tho.

I think I'm going to have to change to Republican so that I can vote for Ron Paul. Apo, tell me why that would be a bad idea.

3: You're not alone.

It is certainly no sure thing that Clinton will win the nomination or even Iowa, but does anyone think that Clinton's campaign would go the way of Dean's following an Iowa loss?

4: Dr. Ron Paul really really hates Roe vs. Wade.

I'll admit that Ron Paul is on the wrong side of that issue.

But, if he's on the right side of every other issue (big IF), would this one issue prevent you from voting for him?

Are you including The Gold Standard in "every other issue"?

6: He's not on the right side of every other issue.

I said it was a big 'if'.

This is not necessarily about Ron Paul, just a question in general. Is one issue important enough to keep you from voting for candidate X?

Suppose a pro-life democrat got the nomination (this is just a hypothetical) and were running against Fred Thompson (if I understand correctly, he believes it should be a state-by-state issue). Would you vote for Fred because his position is marginally closer to pro-choice?

a state-by-state issue

On Monday, Thompson told reporters, "What I have concentrated on is a way to get to the same goal that's achievable. We could not get to first base on an amendment when we controlled both houses and the presidency. Now the question is, what do you do about that? Well, I think the answer is to get better judges and to appoint people to the Supreme Court and hopefully someday Roe v. Wade will be overturned. That's my goal. That's my priority."

Nearly all of them say they believe it should be a state-by-state issue, but that's a dodge. Thompson's voting record was solidly anti-abortion. Your hypothetical wouldn't ever come to pass, though. An anti-abortion Democrat couldn't get the nomination.

Y'all are no fun. I ask a perfectly good hypothetical, and you attack the particulars rather than the obvious larger issue. I sudden have much more empathy for the disenchanted lurkers over at unfogged.

NOT voting for someone over a single issue makes FAR more sense than voting FOR someone because of a single issue, IMO.

Just from memory, I seem to recall that Paul's problem with Roe v. Wade isn't that he's a foaming-at-the-mouth pro-lifer, but that he thinks abortion should be regulated at the state level. (Am I totally off-base here?) If that's Paul's gig, at least the man is ideologically consistent about following the letter of the Constitution and not hunting for "penumbras", etc.

I think that if Paul became President, his uncommon ideas would force other politicians to stand up and take action on this or that issue, instead of sitting back and letting things chug on as usual. The benefits of this phenomenon would outweigh whatever ill effects Paul's wackiness and foibles would have. He'd be the ipecac syrup of American politics, forcing us to vomit up the poisons of 2-party logrolling.

Yeah.

You Democrats. For God's sake vote for Kuchinich or Gravel. Please don't send me another Clinton, and you can do much better than Obama or Edwards.

I can live with your totalitarian collectivism as long as it doesn't involve a gigantic military industrial complex.

I can sleep at night in a cradle to grave welfare Centralized State that oversees every aspect of the tattered remnants of a market economy. Maybe sleep not all night, but enough to feel like a human, and shut up and stop complaining all the time. Certainly the stomach acids will flow less profusely if you don't send me another Clinton.

So please, for god's sake, vote with your conscience. I know you all still have it in you.

Thank you.

.

The so-called Ron Paul rabid support of the gold standard is canard. Sure he thinks it would be fine and dandy, but he doesn't think people should be forced to adopt it, merely be free to choose alternative currencies based on gold... or whatever is stable.

Regarding abortions, he's performed them personally in ectopic pregnancies. His understandign of the topic may be more nuanced than you think.

13,15: Directly from his campaign page which I linked in 5

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman .

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn. (emphasis mine)

I sudden have much more empathy for the disenchanted lurkers over at unfogged.

I don't. Disenchanted lurkers are way overrated. And for many the main complaint seemed to boil down to that they wanted to discuss things like they were in a dorm room at 3am, but mean old Lizardbreath et. al. kept bringing up inconvenient stuff like facts and shit and harshing their mellow.

Hey no dissing Unfogged lurkers!

4, 11: blortch, of course you should consider changing parties to vote for Paul, even if you disagree with him on one or more issues important to you.

Why? Because he is the only candidate who really grasps the rot that is at the core of our federal government, the continued aggrandizement and intrusiveness of federal government, how our military-industrial complex is running amok, how Congress has refused to stand up to the White House (much less set policy other than pork dispensing), and that we need greater checks and balanaces and greater local self-reliance.

Despite clear messages from voters that the Iraq war should be brought to an end (and strong interest in impeaching Cheney and Bush), none of the candidates on the left have acknowledged that it is the Leviathan itself that is our biggest problem or show any spine in standing up to the Bush, the right or big government.

It is disgust with our corrupt federal government (and ongoing cynical manipulation by both parties) that is fuelling not only support for Paul, but also interest in Blue states (and smaller Red states who have been misused by the right) in the "Free State" or secession movement:

http://www.vtcommons.org/node/763
http://middleburyinstitute.org/registrynorthamericanseparatists.html
http://middleburyinstitute.org/chattanoogadeclaration2007.html

Paul's approach is to revivify old (and old-fashioned) "checks and balances", not only with respect to runaway executive power, but on Congress and the federal government generally. By shifting authority to the states, partisans will simply have different fora in which to argue - with no guarantee of success, less deadlock and less consequence.

TT

Here's an "if": supposing Ron Paul was on the right side of by far the two most urgent issues facing the American republic, namely the questions of perpetual warfare and Executive disregard for the rule of law. Could those theoretically be reasons, if not to vote for him necessarily, then to respect him as a candidate and not invest huge amounts of energy in chatting up how craaazy he is?

I hate to admit it, but I think Gaijin Biker is right on this one.

But I'm with M/tch on the lurkers. (Not all of them, just the "I find your forceful females intimidating" ones.)

I don't expect Paul to get the Republican party election, but he certainly is having a good effect in making people think about root causes to our current problems - to which historically Democrats have contributed much.

Yes, Paul's ideas are "uncommon" now, but they nothing new and come straight from the Founders. That the Republicans have drifted so far away from their historical small-government and non-interventionist roots is evidenced by GB's mistaken reference to Paul's supposed "wackiness and foibles".

GB, sorry, but that seems a bit rich. The last six years have been full of "wackiness and foibles" on a broad and dangerous scale, led by a cynical lot who have betrayed the American national interest, and their own principles, for the sake of the lucre of big government and a joyride at the wheel of state (fully justified by the "existential threats" posed by Islomofascists and liberal surrender monleys, of course!).

We will forever have parasites seeking to hijack our bloated government; they are singularly successful - and with disastrous effect - when there is only one party in charge. I hope the on Paul campaign will help people to see that simply replacing one big government party with another (in both houses of Congress and the Administration) is simply a recipe for more of the same.

he thinks abortion should be regulated at the state level

Then why define life as beginning at conception on a federal level, as he has repeatedly tried to do?

nothing new and come straight from the Founders

Really, Tom, what is this supposed to prove? You could say the same thing about slavery and denying franchise to women and non-property-owners, but it wouldn't make them salutary ideas. There are plenty of 18th-century ideas that no longer make sense in the 21st.

For God's sake vote for Kuchinich or Gravel.

Translation: for God's sake, give me President Giuliani.

your totalitarian collectivism

Jon, no offense my old friend, but if you think the Democrats represent totalitarianism, then you wouldn't recognize totalitarianism if it bit you in the ass. There are actual real-world examples, you know.

I hate to admit it, but I think Gaijin Biker is right on this one.

YESSSSS!!! Count it!

That the Republicans have drifted so far away from their historical small-government and non-interventionist roots is evidenced by GB's mistaken reference to Paul's supposed "wackiness and foibles".

I was talking more about the gold standard and the racist newsletter.

Who cares whether Ron Paul is on the right side or wrong side of any issue? He isn't going to be the nominee. Voting for him in the primary is effectively the same as writing in Donald Duck, but somewhat more visible.

Note to self:

mention unfogged => increased comments

merely be free to choose alternative currencies based on gold... or whatever is stable.

Wait a minute. Gold is hardly stable. As currency speculation has been bobbling all over the place in the last few years, gold has soared from its usual $400 or so to a whopping $800---it's now at about $750, which is still just insane.

I have a daughter who lives in Iowa City, and is a precinct captain for Obama. She tells me It Ain't Over In Iowa. I certainly hope she's right! Thanks for the encouraging stats.

It's more or less a three-way tie in Iowa at the moment, but Iowa polling is just about impossible to interpret into potential results because of the intricacies of the caucus system.

But I'm with M/tch on the lurkers. (Not all of them, just the "I find your forceful females intimidating" ones.)

Oh I don't mind the everyday run-of-the-mill too-busy-to-comment lurkers at all, and have been such myself at different times during my Unfogged career. It's the whiners that I don't have any use for.

And the ones who write special seekrit e-mails complaining about it to ogged.

24: I was talking more about the gold standard

27: gold has soared from its usual $400 or so to a whopping $800---it's now at about $750, which is still just insane.

Mr. 24, meet Mr. 27. The meltdown in the dollar is the predictible (and predicted) result of the way the Fed likes to print more of it, without any backing, and is the only real check on the way that the Administration and Congresscritters like to run their expensive boondogles by borrowing from foreigners, at the cost of future taxpayers.

Which idea is crackpot, GB - that a currency should actually represent a meaningful IOU, or thin air?