It’s about freaking time.
The Iowa Republican Party put out an advisory Tuesday setting standards for
participation in a Dec. 4 debate it is sponsoring with Fox News. The phone has
been ringing off the hook ever since.That’s because the sponsors said participants need to average 5% support
among Republicans in recent national or Iowa polls — and so far, Texas Rep. Ron
Paul is one of the candidates not making the cut.
Of course the PaulBots went into action:
News of the party’s decision and how to protest it was spread quickly over
the Internet by supporters of the anti-war, anti-tax, anti-abortion libertarian.
“We are getting bombarded” with calls and e-mails from Paul’s supporters, said
GOP spokeswoman Mary Tiffany. She said there were 25 voice mails from angry Paul
supporters before the start of business Thursday.“I’m all about the First Amendment, but at the same time, how is this
productive?” she asked. “They need to start calling voters and start
door-knocking instead of calling the Republican Party of Iowa.”
Tancredo and Hunter will be out of the debate also, as it should be, at least until they can do better then 4%. Just like the lady said, if they have a problem with it they should be bugging the voters, not the people who put on the debate.
Course we all know the PaulBots will be in full swing spamming every site imaginable until they get their way.
See author page
Ron Paul isn’t out… He is 6% in the Rasmussen poll so is in the Dec 4th debate.
Key word is average here. One poll does not make an average. Last weekly average from Rasmussen shows him at 3%. I highly doubt they will take into account the daily polls.
Of course it is only November 10th. If Rasmussen averages him at 5% in the coming week, he is back in.
Tancredo and Hunter remain out of course. Too bad, because Tancredo would have been great if he had not tried to be a one trick pony on the Mexican border.
Tancredo is a fantastic Congressman and, coming from me, that is saying something because I feel that 99% of Congressmen really belong in jail.
Seriously.
It’s kind of hard to gain traction in these polls when your not included! And if Paul is included you have to press 6 for “other” and then he’s listed as the first candidate on the second page so to speak.
Be it as it may if he’s truely only getting 3 percent of the vote and STILL collecting record amounts of money then wait until he hits 10 percent in the polls! 😉
Next year, the 10% of Americans who want Ron Paul are going to give the Republican Party an ultimatum.
Give us libertarians complete control of the RNC, especially the power to vet Congressional and senatorial candidates, or we let Hillary into office and take over all those functions anyway as the neocon and evangelical core implodes after the defeat.
The Dems stand to get filibuster proof control over Congress + the White House + they can fill the Supreme Court with youthful radical feminists.
Wait a minute…that last part makes it so the libertarians are not really in a position to blackmail the Republicans.
I take back everything I just said. 🙁
1.) The polls aren’t accurate
2.) Since when is voicing your opinion considered spam?
3.) Are you really ok with a corporate business delegating who gets to participate in debates which help Americans form an opinion about who they’d like to vote for?
Right now we need the people of our country to stand up and make demands, just like they did when this United States was formed. To the person that wrote this article, you can attribute your freedom, the fact that you have free speech to write this article to people like Ron Paul and his supporters. Don’t bite the hand that fed you and is still feeding you.
The left has taken Gravel out of the picture, but I expect to see the rest left until at least after South Carolina to ensure nobody has to say a thing longer than a sound bite.
Give Hillary one additional minute to answer and there is potential trouble brewing.
1. Ron Paul has broke records with raising 4.2 million in 24 hours. That there should give some people serious misgivings about the polls used.
2. There’s evidence of the polls being setup in a way so as to not include paul and other candidates like kucinich on their list.
3. The media establishments intentionally leave his positive results out, or intentionally misrepresent them giving a one sided tunnel vision like view to the story, there’s always a blatant and close minded slant to their coverage.
4. Fox news is an establishment that calls for US supported car bombings in Iran, and runs a hostile environment for any non-traditional reign of thought. which has lead to some dark times for America, past, present and soon to be future.
You either have to be blind to whats going on around you, or you have noticed the building police state, both at home and abroad. You have noticed the North American Union, and perhaps see the implicated connections to the Council on Foreign Relations, endless war on the horizon and the future consequences for agressive strikes at various nations. If you have noticed how most of the media outlets are owned by just a few people, or how the profiteers off this war are connected straight to the people Fox and other corps representing their points of view praise…
You know Fox and these other corps in their able status know the facts about who these touted men are, who through the last century at least they have always been. These small groups decide what we need or do not need to know about given topics, and through keeping us ignorant of certain facts and evidence they are letting those few people who run America walk unchallenged and allow them to continue to use their close minded backwards facist principals to undermine the things that made America the great country it is.
If you research and understand the history behind things like IG Farben, US Standard Oil, the Bushes and the Rockafellers, The Fed and the (()))ilitary Industrial Complex. You start to realize just how tipped the tables really are, and how easy they get away with it. Only when you understand this to be true and understand the facts behind it do you start to understand who Ron Paul supporters really are and why they are so desperate for him.
Its not fringe, its not conspiracy its watching them run America off a cliff as the few relentlessly pursue the same wasted close minded paths for theirs and their lobbyist friends on wall street.
Ron Paul has a much more educated position on things from medical care, taxes and economy, laws and the constitution, military and war as well as an open and refreshing understanding about how each of these things are having a indirect/direct negative impact in the life of every American today. The other candidates, let alone media mouth pieces do not bring anything useful for bringing America back from the brink of Facism. They sure as fuck dont come with less baggage either.
Let the primaries weed out the candidates, not the media and the sponsored land-line polls. This is a matter of the freedom of speech and equal opportunity.
“Let the primaries weed out the candidates, not the media and the sponsored land-line polls. This is a matter of the freedom of speech and equal opportunity.”
I don’t support Ron Paul, but I support this statement. This is absolutely ridiculous that our elections are determined not by voters, but by the media and political parties who determine whom voters can and cannot hear/see.
I also find it interesting reading on many ‘conservative’ sites (not necessarily this one, just making a general statement here) that claim to be strict contructionists and supporters of what the Founding Fathers would have wanted, when the Founding Fathers were clearly against political parties. But now, all I hear is that it is ridiculous to have multiple parties, we have to stick the two-party system. Even though parties make it so that people are loyal to party instead of loyal to principle.
And now all we are left with is a Republican Party moving left and a Democrat Party moving extreme left – which now gives us no Party of the right (pro-Life, pro-Enforcement of Border, pro-Enforcement of Immigration Laws, pro-Traditional marriage, pro-Small government, pro-Low Tax/Low Spend budget, etc).
I agree with Michael in MI. There is no need for the GOP in IA to decide unilaterally that it will be the judge of ‘serious’ candidates.
There is no doubt that Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter have earned the right to appear at this debate, as they have been a part of all of the earlier debates, and none of the three of them have yet left the race (as Brownback did a little while ago.)
With these three candidates present at the next debate, there are more Americans that will be impressed by Tancredo’s stance on the immigration issue, by Hunter’s stance on right-to-life issues, and by Paul’s stance on small government rule.
It is utterly silly for us as Republicans to muzzle these three candidates voices by the creation of some arbitrary minumum polling qualification–especially at this very early stage in the race.
For the record, I’m for leaving Ron Paul in the debates just so we have someone to LAUGH AT. Every time he answers he starts out ok, but by the time he ends he is whining in a high octave! What a JOKE!
Now, I want to offer some clarification as to Iowa’s rules. The USA Today article may be misleading, so I went to the IOWA GOP at:
http://www.iowagop.net/shownews.asp?artid=33
The averages of national polls are found at:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html#polls
SORRY PAULBOTS, but the Grim Reaper can’t cut it either way.
And Jim Peterson: Where are you getting that weed you are smoking. I haven’t had a buzz that delusional in years! 10% my ass!
Oh really? Then where is the rest of the field? These are all the GOP candidates:
Hugh Cort
David Ernst Furniss
Daniel Ayers Gilbert
Walter D. Kennedy
Mark Klein
William Koenig
Michael Charles Smith
Richard Michael Smith
Raymond L. McKinney
Keith Sprankle
Vern Wuensche
All are declared candidates for the GOP nomination who have filed with the FEC.
Look, there has to be a cutoff sometime. If your not getting good numbers there is no reason to allow them to waste the country’s time.
LOL, it looks like the PaulBots have hit Flopping Aces!
I say good for the Iowa GOP. I like Duncan Hunter, but if he can’t average 5% he shouldn’t be in either.
“Look, there has to be a cutoff sometime. If your not getting good numbers there is no reason to allow them to waste the country’s time.”
Curt – I believe part of the reason that so-called 2nd Tier Candidates (such as Duncan Hunter) are not getting their fair shake in all these so-called polls is because rabid supporters of the so-called 1st Tier candidates are bullying people into supporting so-called 1st Tier candidates. With the threat that “if you don’t support (Rudy/Romney/Fred), you are just giving your vote to Hillary”. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen that sentiment written on right-of-center/Republican-supporting political blogs. They they go further and ridicule anyone who is a social conservative and say that my views on the sanctity of life, homosexual activism and traditional marriage are meaningless and I need to just get over it already. Meanwhile, these same people say that Rudy’s pro-gun control and pro-amnesty stances aren’t that important either. I have to say that is an absolutely wonderful way to inspire support.
I have also seen the comment “I really support Duncan Hunter, but I don’t think he has a chance, so I am just putting my support behind Rudy/Fred, because I belive he can win”. Wonderful. We are now an electorate that does not stand on principle or values, but only cares about winning.
What message does this send to upstanding political leaders in the future when they know that an electorate really doesn’t believe in everything in which they state and their votes can be bought?
I have to say that I am gaining a lot more respect for Ron Paul supporters and losing respect more by the day for Rudy Giuliani supporters. At least the Ron Paul supporters are standing on principle. The Rudy supporters are just telling me that my values and principles mean nothing and Rudy’s flaws mean nothing, because we just need to beat Hillary.
Well, when I see no big difference between what Rudy would do and what Hillary would do, that doesn’t give me any motivation to bother to show up to vote. And the bullying of Rudy’s supporters and their belittling of everything for which I stand is turning me off to politics completely.
Also, Republicans, especially conservative ones, should be careful what they wish for. The more the Democrat Party goes left, the more the Republican Party also goes Left. Especially with Rudy as the nominee. And if the GOP nominate Rudy, they have completely lost the “moral high ground” on social conservatism. Because that would tell political opponents that conservatives do not really care about their issues, they care about winning elections. Pat Robertson’s endorsement proved that.
We get it, you don’t like Rudy. Don’t vote for him. Vote for Hillary or whomever you choose. But to try and tell me that every person running for President should get equal time at the debates is ludicrous. There would 30 people on stage and no one would get to answer.
There has to be a cutoff, and this early 5% is reasonable. Later I would say 10-15 should be the cutoff.
“Oh really? Then where is the rest of the field? These are all the GOP candidates:
BANKS, JEDIDIAH ELIJAH WENDELL KENNEDY
BARNETT, DANIEL JAMES
BAUER, GARY L
BROUGHMAN, DEWEY R
BROWNBACK, SAMUEL DALE
BUSH, GEORGE W…”
So George W. Bush is a candidate in 2008, even though it is illegal for him to run for President? He actually declared with the FEC for 2008? How many others are on this list who are not even legally allowed to be on it?
Thanks for pointing that out. I lifted that list from FR and just now checked the names on the web. I’ve fixed the original comment with the real third tier names.
There has to be a cutoff, and this early 5% is reasonable. Later I would say 10-15 should be the cutoff.”
Why? Why should there be a cutoff? What if the people of Iowa don’t know much about the candidates, because, like most Americans, they aren’t paying much attention to the campaign yet, and this would be their first introduction to people such as Duncan Hunter?
This is all about eliminating competition for the declared so-called 1st Tier Candidates, nothing more. It is just like when the Democrats work to make sure people such as Ralph Nader off ballots, because they don’t want to ALLOW people to vote for someone they support. The same thing is happening here. People are being denied the freedom to vote how they want to vote. They are being TOLD, you either vote for option 1 or option 2. Period. How is that freedom?
And I like Rudy. He is a liberal Democrat along the lines of Joe Lieberman. I have no problem with him running his open and honest campaign for the Democrat ticket where he aligns more with their platform. But yes, I don’t like him as a Republican, because then the GOP platform completely changes from where it was in 2004 and it means that the social conservative movement is stopped in its tracks.
Their names will be on the ballot, that is freedom. They are free to run and raise money and buy commercials and so on. But time is limited on debates and its just plain common sense Mike.
Curt, The mistake with GWB is understandable if you listen to any of the Democrat debates. That’s who they are all running against. 😉
But your main point is exactly right. These debates are way to crowded. Having more candidates on stage doesn’t increase the opportunity for people to learn about the candidates, it lessens it. Fewer candidates will allow more time for answers, more questions, and hopefully more substance.
“But to try and tell me that every person running for President should get equal time at the debates is ludicrous. There would 30 people on stage and no one would get to answer.”
They should get equal time. And when there are more candidates than time allows, then the debate format should change and it should be held over a number of days.
The debate format NOW is ridiculous. We have people dressed as snowmen asking questions, we have idiots chosen by leftist media outlets to ask questions through YouTube, we have candidates getting softball questions and preparing 30 second soundbite answers.
Heck, the Presidential debates last year were a joke too, with John Kerry and President Bush the only ones involved. They were given 30 seconds to ask a complicated question, then 30 seconds to rebut a rebuttal. And then they are judged based on who gave the best 30 second soundbite. And then they prepare specific jokes to get in and specific talking points, etc. It’s a joke.
I don’t want to choose a President based on soundbites and prepared jokes and prepared talking points. I want some details on what these people stand for, what are their policies, what are their visions for the future of America. But do we get these from the debates? No. We get people being P.C. so as not to piss off and alienate the wrong people.
It is not that there are “too many” candidates. That is a ridiculous statement in my opinion. America should have CHOICES for President. They shouldn’t be FORCED to choose between 2 people. That is not a real choice. That is not freedom.
I see a lot of people look back and say that those who voted for Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. No, people who voted for Ross Perot stood on principle and voted for whom they thought was best for the Presidency, because they wanted to hold George H.W. Bush accountable. I hear people now say that we are not allowed to do that. So then I guess all the ruckus that Americans are allowed to hold their politicians accountable with their vote is just a talking point and not true at all. What is really true is that we are to be bullied into voting between two candidates and it must stay like that and we must give our loyalty to party over principle.
If that is the case, then count me out of politics from here on out. Because I have no interest in furthering listening to everyone’s talking points that they stand for principles and values and freedom, when it is clearly the opposite.
“Their names will be on the ballot, that is freedom.”
Is this true? Aren’t Democrats always working to keep Ralph Nader off State ballots? That is not freedom.
And people bullying me into supporting Rudy or Fred otherwise I am a pathetic excuse for an American because I just gave my vote to Hillary… yeah that sounds like freedom to me too.
Yes, that is freedom. Geez….
We are free to tell you that your making a huge mistake. Your free to ignore it.
Man o’ man, just no reasoning with you.
Yeah, they sure showed him and the country.
Please man, use some common sense.
Rofl…..good one.
“Yeah, they sure showed him and the country.
Please man, use some common sense.”
So what you are saying is that when a politician does not follow through on their campaign promises, we are to allow them to get away with it and just vote for them again. How is that “common sense”? The people who voted for Perot showed President Bush and the country that there was a large bloc of people whose first priority was fiscal conservatism. What other way is there to show politicians that this is the case? Write to them? Call them? Like they care? The only thing politicians care about is staying in office. The only thing that will move them to do anything is the threat of losing an election or if they are given enough money. Since most people are not George Soros, our only voice is to vote them out of office.
I was told by all these people more politically savvvy than me that the way that Americans hold politicians accountable is with their vote. What I am taking from you (and many others) is that with one party completely Leftist, Socialist and Communist, the other party can get away with anything they want, since we will never hold them accountable, since we don’t dare place a vote for anyone else, else we are left with the Leftist/Socialist/Communist party.
I give up. Your hopeless.
Michael: I won’t waste much time responding to you since you refuse to take the pledge to support the eventual nominee.
But I will however, just remind you and any lurking Paulbots of the old saying: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
I’m sorry there isn’t a VIABLE candidate in the field that meets your criteria for acceptance. I recall before the GOP nomination in 1980 people saw many flaws in Ronald Reagan (the Paulbots STILL do, but then despite their claims to the contrary, neither they nor Ron Paul are conservatives).
I remember people saying at the time that Reagan, compared to Carter, was the “lesser of two evils.”
Some evil hunh?
Carter would have taken us further down the road of weakness and appeasement with the Soviets. Reagan had a simple plan on for the Cold War. He said “We win, they lose” then he acted on that plan. And succeeded.
No one that I would have the slightest respect for would ever say that Reagan was no different from Carter, or that it didn’t make any difference who was elected.
No one I have any respect for would have been proud to sit out that election, when in hindsight we learned what a great President Reagan became.
I’m not saying that Rudy, Fred, Romney, McCain….. would ever be like Reagan. Reagan is dead and there will never be another. No one knows what kind of president any of those men would make.
But one thing is ABSOLUTELY AND UNQUESTIONABLY CERTAIN: Any of them would do more to protect the values that you and I share than Hillary Clinton.
So, if you cannot hold your nose and take the pledge to at least vote for the eventual GOP nominee, you are by default SUPPORTING the election of a person who actively seeks to overturn every principle you are making your stand upon.
I cannot seriously believe anyone for whom I would have any respect would take that course of action.
With Tancredo out, it’ll be easier to minimize the illegal immigration issue from coming up the debate.
“I give up. Your hopeless.”
Yeah, thanks. I feel that way. It is pretty hopeless when nothing I stand for means anything, because I have to just continue supporting “the lesser of two evils” otherwise I lose the respect of my fellow Americans.
Thanks, fellas. Take care.
Michael in Michigan,
I think you are misunderstanding the reasoning behind those who seem to only care about “winning”.
How does losing an election help? Because you decided to stand on principle?
Not to compare you at all to Jimmy Carter, but just to analogize: the Peanut President stood on “principle”, and withdrew support for the Shah because the Iranian leader did not live up to our sanctimonious standards on human rights. Carter could not foresee the consequences of “standing on principle”. In doing so, all he accomplished was to enable an even more ruthless regime to take root; one that has setback human rights, women’s rights, and has created the Iranian threat that looms before us to this day.
Those who told you that voting for Ross Perot enabled 8 years of Clinton are right in pointing that out to you. It doesn’t mean you should feel belittled, in your opinion, though.
Last November, the angry-as-hell-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore-conservatives did not come to bat for the Republican Party to “teach them a lesson”.
To paraphrase Amy Proctor, “primaries are for teaching lessons; general is for winning”.
How does a Pelosified Democratic Party-led Congress further the conservative movement?
Why do you feel “bullied”? If some disagree with you, trying to point out how your reasoning might be flawed, why is that “bullying”? Is it, perhaps, because somewhere inside you, is a voice that says, maybe they’re right? And you can’t reconcile that inner voice with “principle”?
For all the Tancredo/Ron Paul conservatives out there who are ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, no electable conservative will ever be good enough for them. Reagan is romanticized today, but he certainly would not be conservative enough for you party purists and mad-as-hell conservatives. Party purists ruin political movements. Losing elections does not push forward conservative ideology. Winning elections, does.
I vote on principle, like you, Michael….by standing behind my party’s candidate, and the party that best reflects my values, however imperfectly that they might be. This is because if the Democrats share 10% of my values and the Republicans share 85%, I’m going to support the Republican Party. And if I want the Party to eventually be in 100% alignment with my values and beliefs, I work within the Party, to bring about those reforms and changes. Not against it. Even if I were agreeing with the Republican Party only 30% of the time, I will still vote Republican, if the other party is one that I disagree with, 90% of the time.
And yes, I believe in the two-party system. If you want to put into effect change, you do so, within one of the two political parties. Going outside it, is to cast away your vote and does nothing at all to help further the issues you care about.
I’d hate for the world to go to hell-in-a-handbasket, all because I chose to “stand on principle”, rather than do “the right thing”.
Not trying to be insulting, mind you; just trying to state my case as effectively as I can.
Michael, I haven’t “lost respect for you”; and I don’t know who you’ve been talking to, who have. But, what does that matter?
We’re all mostly on the same side, here. Debate is healthy; airing out our dirty laundry is healthy. Sometimes the rhetoric may get heated and we may get exasperated, with all this typing and getting through with about as much success as talking to a brick wall. But at least we got to get our ideas out there, for others to see. And if it does nothing more than to get others to think, and for us to think, then that’s better than to have kept silent, and not had this discussion at all.
You’ve been a loyal FA reader, and I hope disagreement doesn’t mean you’ll stop reading posts, here.
I don’t understand Americans anymore. When we celebrated the bicentennial in 1976 people were in the streets shouting for America. The Constitution was displayed everywhere. There were parties and fireworks. And now? Now we’re content to call the supporters of one who honestly stands up for the Constitution and American Liberty, bots?
My ancestors arrived here circa 1720. I have 3 ggg-grandfathers who fought in the Revolutionary War. They cleared every plot of land they ever owned and built log cabins. I’m ashamed of Americans today. If you don’t support Ron Paul then YOU do support socialism.
The exclusion of Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo. and Duncan Hunter serves the interests of those who just wish that conservatives would just shut up “trivial” issues such our borders, illegal immigration, law of the sea treaty, etc and just get in the back of bus.
Well, we tried “lesser of two evils” with Bush and we got disaster. We are at the stage that we are so close to the edge that either the Republican front runners or Hillary will push us over the edge. In fact it might be better if it is Hillary than the Republican that tries to push us over the edge for at least with her we will have Republicans who would oppose her out of partisanship while they would support the same actions if coming from a Republican President.
The lines between the GOP and the Dems is becoming indistinguishable these days, thus I vote Paul. I’m also one of those people that is thrilled that people are coming over from the Dems to vote. It shows they are not all Hillary-bots (instead of Paul-bots haha funny!). Those people, like me, long for days of fiscal responsibiltiy, times of peace, and an end to the nanny state. That makes them comrades of mine…of ours.
I also find it interesting that people say they want a straight talking candidate but when one comes along they get lambasted. So it makes me wonder if people would just rather be lied to. It’s ok $9 trillion dollars of debt with no end in sight is “ok”. Is that what we really want to hear?
The big thing that made me post here on Flopping Aces is the talk about principle and losing elections. Losing an election because you stuck to principles is more honorable and important than doing “anything to win”. History and politics is full of “losers” who were true “winners” in the long run. If the GOP runs most of the current crop the lose the “moral high ground” and the “fiscal responsibility high ground”.
History fondly remembers men of principle, but it pours out its scorn on those of little substance.
The die is cast.
Well Fox and Sean the coward Hannity got a bunch in their panties and cancelled the debate. They knew they have to have Dr Paul there and don’t want to try and explain away another Ron Paul post debate poll win. This one would have been by more that 38% I’ll guarantee you. Can you imagine winning the text with say 70% of the vote….Guess I can’t blame them. They need to realize what they are trying to sell is killing this country. The people know it and it’s time they woke up!
Iowa Debate Without Paul, Tancredo, Hunter
The Republican debate in Iowa on December 4th will not (as of now) include ca…
…