Newt Gingrich

Where are you getting 27.5% from? Latest I have seen is 23% Paul, 20% Romney on the 18th in the latest Public Policy Polling numbers (Paul up 2%, Romney up 4% from previous numbers), and Romney 25%, Paul 20% today in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll (each up 2% from previous numbers).



Paul has just been following the trend of Bachmann, Perry, Cain and now Gingrich---taking a share of front-runner status as the anti-Romney, but faltering, slowing, and eventually slipping back down once he faced with the same scrutiny as those before him while Mitt continues his slow march to the top of the Iowa polls.

SpiffCoug wrote:
The Republican party is trying on all comers to challenge Romney. All of them have shot up the polls and then been found wanting. So they fell at the same speed with which they rose.

If Ron Paul falls in the polls at the same rate he rose Mitt Romney should be shaking in his boots.



BTW are you really trying to say the Republican establishment is pushing Ron Paul? You're kidding right?

snocythe wrote:
Where are you getting 27.5% from? Latest I have seen is 23% Paul, 20% Romney on the 18th in the latest Public Policy Polling numbers (Paul up 2%, Romney up 4% from previous numbers), and Romney 25%, Paul 20% today in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll (each up 2% from previous numbers).

KCRG/Gazette/ISU Poll. They were the most accurate poll in 2008. Their methodology includes polling more cell phones than some of the other polls.

snocythe wrote:
Paul has just been following the trend of Bachmann, Perry, Cain and now Gingrich---taking a share of front-runner status as the anti-Romney, but faltering, slowing, and eventually slipping back down once he faced with the same scrutiny as those before him while Mitt continues his slow march to the top of the Iowa polls.

You are right Romney has been steadily rising. The same is true of Ron Paul. I always thought it would come down to those two.

jvquarterback wrote:

Where are you getting 27.5% from? Latest I have seen is 23% Paul, 20% Romney on the 18th in the latest Public Policy Polling numbers (Paul up 2%, Romney up 4% from previous numbers), and Romney 25%, Paul 20% today in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll (each up 2% from previous numbers).

KCRG/Gazette/ISU Poll. They were the most accurate poll in 2008. Their methodology includes polling more cell phones than some of the other polls.

Their data set is also 8 and 11 days older than PPP and RR poll data--PPP and RR show data collected only after the most recent debate (12-15-11), while the KCRG poll is primarily based on data collected before the most watched debate of the race (KCRG data collected 8th to 18th, PPP collected 16th through 18th, RR collected 19th only).

jvquarterback wrote:

The Republican party is trying on all comers to challenge Romney. All of them have shot up the polls and then been found wanting. So they fell at the same speed with which they rose.

If Ron Paul falls in the polls at the same rate he rose Mitt Romney should be shaking in his boots.



BTW are you really trying to say the Republican establishment is pushing Ron Paul? You're kidding right?

No, I meant the voters of the Republican party, not the party bigwigs. The voters are going from candidate to candidate to see if they like them. They'll eventually come around to Mitt. The fact that Mitt has been the most stable candidate is very good news for Mitt and the Party. He's not going to be a flash in the pan candidate. He's going to be VERY formidable in the general election.

snoscythe wrote:

snocythe wrote:
Where are you getting 27.5% from? Latest I have seen is 23% Paul, 20% Romney on the 18th in the latest Public Policy Polling numbers (Paul up 2%, Romney up 4% from previous numbers), and Romney 25%, Paul 20% today in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll (each up 2% from previous numbers).

KCRG/Gazette/ISU Poll. They were the most accurate poll in 2008. Their methodology includes polling more cell phones than some of the other polls.

Their data set is also 8 and 11 days older than PPP and RR poll data--PPP and RR show data collected only after the most recent debate (12-15-11), while the KCRG poll is primarily based on data collected before the most watched debate of the race (KCRG data collected 8th to 18th, PPP collected 16th through 18th, RR collected 19th only).

You're right the data goes from Dec 8-18 (and they poll fewer people than some of the other polls). Just saying it's funny when everyone says Ron Paul has a ceiling and the next day he breaks right through it. Meanwhile no one talks about Mitt Romney's ceiling even though he's never polled above 29% in Iowa.



It will be close. It isn't like the people of Iowa don't know about Ron Paul or Mitt Romney.

...and so it begins with Paul wilting under the scrutiny that comes with running at the front of the pack:



http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-suddenly-doesnt-want-talk-reporters-racist-233746279.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Cutting off interviews because he doesn't want to address his organization's racist newsletters from the past, his hypocritical stance on earmarks ("I won't vote for them, but I'll insert them"), or corruption questions.



Here's the video where he cuts short the Borger interview saying he didn't read or know about the articles his organization published in 1992 until ten years later:



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-gets-defensive-over-past-newsletters/?hpt=hp_t3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Which is funny, because in the same exchange he mentions he's been getting asked about it for 20 years (i.e. since about 1992.....when they were published) and in this interview in 1996 (just four years after publication) Paul didn't bother to deny writing the statements, but rather defended them and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns.



So now Ron Paul has to address: (a) why are you cutting off interviews when your skeletons start coming out, (b) how can you say you didn't know about it for 10 years when you gave an interview about it to the Dallas Morning News 4 years later, and (c) why are you now denying you wrote it or knew about it but you failed to mention that the last time it came up in 1996 when you instead chose to defend it as a misinterpretation of your article. Then he's going to have to start answering charges of anti-Semitism and start backing up (or backing away from) his conspiracy theories, because the Jewish establishment is starting to turn the wheels as well.

That video is the same type of thing I am worried about.



He came completely unraveled, starting talking 100 words a second, and got aggitated.



You put that next to Obama, and we will lose. It doesn't matter if he is right, wrong, whatever.



Obama wins if you put him on a stage against Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has never defended what was written in the newsletters. He has simply said he did not write them. He admits he should have been aware of their contents and stopped their production.



FYI Ron Paul polls higher among minorities than any other Republican in the most recent head-head polls with Obama. Go figure. Maybe it's because they can see Ron Paul isn't racist and his ideas about freedom are the best option for all Americans, including minorities.



If this is all the media and Ron Paul's opponents have then they have nothing. Race-baiting isn't going to work this time around. People are sick and tired of it. It didn't work when they tried to do it to Perry or Romney and it won't work when they try it on Paul.

I'm sorry, but you keep bringing up polls. The only people that actually put stock into polls are media - so they can have something to talk about, and uneducated people that don't look stuff up.



You can poll 100 seniors in Florida on whether or not FL is the greatest place to retire, and get a 95% approval rating.



Now poll 100 seniors in Greece or Italy if FL is the best place to retire, and get a 0% approval.



Polling data can be whatever you want it to be, and it almost never reflects the actual swing of what is happening, unless it is done on a broad scale, with a lot of money put behind it. And they almost never are. The people paying for the polls go out to get certain results, and they stop once those results are attained.



You think the polls from Fox or CNN are "fair and balanced?" lol.

I just watched the interview in total. The lady doing the interview had wrapped up and he started to take off the microphone. Sure doesn't look like he just walked off the interview or anything like that. You can sort of tell at the end her voice is totally different - not the investigational type questions she was asking earlier, more of a hey I'm just doing my job type thing. Not sure what the big deal was about that. I thought the interview was fine and no different than any of the others Paul's given on the subject. Also no different than Perry or Romney did when confronted with charges of racism and rightly so.

Doesn't look promising to me when one of the most conservative and libertarian leaning forums on the internet is all against RP except for 1 guy.

jvquarterback wrote:
Ron Paul has never defended what was written in the newsletters. He has simply said he did not write them. He admits he should have been aware of their contents and stopped their production.

Did you read the 1996 interview? Because that's not what he said back then.



And BTW--the interview wasn't over. She asked him about his past statements that the first WTC bombing was coordinated by Israel, and that's the point at which he took off the microphone and terminated it.



Paul's position of "I already answered that question" is laughable--he doesn't seem to mind answering the same questions about bubbles and the Fed over and over again, so he shouldn't go Herman Cain on reporters who ask him the harder questions.

Polls are what they are. The polling agencies get graded on accuracy this close to elections. If they are inaccurate they don't make money. Last election I wanted to ignore the polls when they didn't come out they way I wanted but the polls were right.



Just as a side note the polls aren't graded until 1 month prior to elections. If you are looking for a conspiracy theory on polls it is interesting that the two candidates the establishment least likes (Romney and Paul) are doing best now that the polls are within the window of the polls being graded. Just saying.

snoscythe wrote:

Ron Paul has never defended what was written in the newsletters. He has simply said he did not write them. He admits he should have been aware of their contents and stopped their production.

Did you read the 1996 interview? Because that's not what he said back then.



And BTW--the interview wasn't over. She asked him about his past statements that the first WTC bombing was coordinated by Israel, and that's the point at which he took off the microphone and terminated it.



Paul's position of "I already answered that question" is laughable--he doesn't seem to mind answering the same questions about bubbles and the Fed over and over again, so he shouldn't go Herman Cain on reporters who ask him the harder questions.

Yes I read the article. Not sure if you have anything more from the interview but I didn't see anything he said as defending what was written. He just called it political demagoguery which is the same thing he is saying now.



He had his microphone off before she asked him about the Israel bomb thing which he has also said he didn't write.

hawkwing wrote:
Doesn't look promising to me when one of the most conservative and libertarian leaning forums on the internet is all against RP except for 1 guy.

Are you saying that this forum is libertarian leaning?

snoscythe wrote:

Ron Paul has never defended what was written in the newsletters. He has simply said he did not write them. He admits he should have been aware of their contents and stopped their production.

Did you read the 1996 interview? Because that's not what he said back then.



And BTW--the interview wasn't over. She asked him about his past statements that the first WTC bombing was coordinated by Israel, and that's the point at which he took off the microphone and terminated it.



Paul's position of "I already answered that question" is laughable--he doesn't seem to mind answering the same questions about bubbles and the Fed over and over again, so he shouldn't go Herman Cain on reporters who ask him the harder questions.

Yep.



And "going Herman Cain?" Does that refer to trying to have sex with anything wearing more than a "B" cup in a 60 ft radius? Is that "going all Hermain Cain" on someone?



;)

jvquarterback wrote:
Yes I read the article. Not sure if you have anything more from the interview but I didn't see anything he said as defending what was written. He just called it political demagoguery which is the same thing he is saying now.

From the article: "Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be r! ead and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation," and "In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men," and "He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia." and finally: "These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report." He sure had plenty of opportunities in 1996 to deny he wrote it or saw it four years previous, but instead he seems to own it.



You still haven't addressed the fact that in the CNN interview he said he didn't know anything about these publications until 10 years after the fact, but he was discussing them in the DMN less than 4 years after publication. That's pretty damning as to his current credibility in saying he didn't write, approve, or even review them (an argument he failed to make in 1996), when the 10 years statement is a pants-on-fire lie :whistle:

He had his microphone off before she asked him about the Israel bomb thing which he has also said he didn't write.

So you're saying he took his mike off before the interview was over....

jvquarterback wrote:

The problem with the bailouts is that we don't know what would have happened sans bailout money.

Yes we do. The poor investments would have been liquidated and the economy would have corrected itself. Just as it has in the past. The government wouldn't be throwing more of my money down the drain into failed businesses. The doomsday garbage was just that - garbage. And now that the banks have succeeded in robbing the people, you are offering excuses for Mitt Romney's abandonment of free markets.

Yes the economy would have corrected itself. Where we disagree is the extent. When I saw the banking system and worldwide liquidity locked down; that to me was teetering on the edge, it was not a stretch for me to get to a doomsday scenario due to absolute necessity for liquidity in our economy. Businesses require liquidity, liquidity comes from banks and financial institutions. we had lost 2 of the 3 and that's why the banks needed help; did it go too far? perhaps but no one had ever done anything like this before but the point is it didn't fail. And for the record, I've said nothing of Mitt Romney.

jvquarterback wrote:

100% free markets have been tried and failed.

False. Name one time or place where a 100% free market has existed.

1920s had neither the SEC, SOXs or Frank Dodd so I'll argue that it was a "freer" market than today. Enter Great Depression #1 . One major cause was no limit to investors borrowing against valued paper stocks to buy more stocks. Works great when prices are going up (and ironically not dissimilar at all to buying 5th level AAA tranche mortgage backed securities that was a major cog in the 2008 crash...)When prices started to go down, and margins were called,there was no underlying cash to back up losses, it was worthless paper. The market allowed and encouraged this practice and the economic price was catastrophic. I'm not arguing that we had a 100% free system back then, but the SEC was created and I'd argue that they've helped the system much more than it's hurt.

jvquarterback wrote:

They don't voluntarily pay taxes for things like defense and roads,

So what? Maybe roads aren't what a free people would choose - maybe it would be railroads or something else. If they won't pay for defense then they won't be defended. Fine.

This is an argument against basic economics and basic government providing for the common welfare. I, for one, prefer a neutral police force rather than a private commercial armies (is that really what you want?) and believe that the US highways and trucking system might have done more for our economy than virtually any other improvement. The fact that you want to argue for not just an isolationist US international policy, but a return to city states run by the largest firms... Ron Paul seems like just the candidate for you. That sounds like Mad Max and the ThunderDome hell to me.

jvquarterback wrote:

they employ little children, have terrible working conditions,

Evaluate the employment levels of children in fields where the government became involved (manufacturing) and fields they ignored (farming). You'll notice a difference. The rate of decrease of child labor was faster for farming.



Now look at injury rates prior to and after OSHA began regulating working conditions. The rate of change in workplace injuries slowed and has come to a standstill now that there is government regulation to protect companies from the free market of having to provide a safer workplace to entice workers to join their company

You might have more knowledge here than I do. What I know is that kids worked in coal mines and slept in factories. Now they don't. I have no problem with kids working on a healthy farm.



This from Osha's website: in 1970 it was estimated that 14,000 workers were killed on the job. In 2009 that number was 4,340 during a time when the US workforce doubled in size. Not sure what numbers you're looking at, but that's impressive. If you try and tell me that regulations can hurt businesses, I'd agree with you and I'd want to get them to the right level. if you try and argue that ALL regulations are harmful; i don't see how that argument holds much water.

jvquarterback wrote:

have no respect for intellectual property, and create natural and unbreakable monopolies.

It's funny you put these two together. Did you know that the first patent law was called the "Statute of Monopolies?" Oh, and are you still paying royalties to the guy who invented fire? There has never existed a monopoly without the use of force by the state. Find one. They've never existed. But I could find 187,000 state granted monopolies in the form of patents in the last year.

I didn't know that. interesting. but why would you suggest I pay royalties to the fire guy? the beauty of patent law is that it doesn't last forever. it gives the innovator a plentiful head start to earn the profits for their work and then opens it up to everyone. How can you know what the first patent law was and not know that patents last no more than 20 years?



Could you help me understand how 3 of the largest monopolies ever created were government sponsored? I thought of Microsoft, Standard Oil, or US Steel. All 3 were private enterprises, and all 3 were ultimately attacked by the justice dept, not supported by it.

jvquarterback wrote:

Regulation can create a level playing field

No it cannot. A fellow named George Stigler won a Nobel Prize for describing regulatory capture. That is the use of regulation by large, established companies to prevent innovation.

Sounds like a riveting read. Please note I said "can create". You describe one element of a vast system that you don't think is working that is definitely fixable. That's hardly an argument for its entire removal.

jvquarterback wrote:
You are right that innovation has stopped but you've been deceived to think that the answer is anything less than freedom and free markets.

America did the best when it was the freest of countries. If you want America to lead the world again it will have again become the freest society on earth. Anyone who supports the bailouts would prevent America from attaining that position.

There were a lot of factors that led to America's Industrial age growth and I can see why you'd want us to emulate the growth from that time. But economics is not a single bullet game. You can't just wave a magic "free market" wand and duplicate an economic event from 150 years ago, especially when the two economies are so fundamentally different and the world we operate in is not even comparable. Yet you seem to think that "anything less" is causing all our economic woes.



I feel like you're trying to tell me the reason we have to drive so slow is due to regulatory and prohibitory stoplights. if we could just get rid of them and get to a "Free system", we'd all be able to drive faster. Everytime a red light shows, freedom is blocked and I'm not allowed to drive where i want! In the 1820s they didn't have any accidents at all! let's do THAT again!.



Hopefully we can agree that stoplights are part of an efficient system and just because a few rogue drivers ignore lights and cause accidents, doesn't mean we need to force people to walk to work.

wow longest post ever. sorry!

jvquarterback wrote:

Paul has just been following the trend of Bachmann, Perry, Cain and now Gingrich---taking a share of front-runner status as the anti-Romney, but faltering, slowing, and eventually slipping back down once he faced with the same scrutiny as those before him while Mitt continues his slow march to the top of the Iowa polls.

You are right Romney has been steadily rising. The same is true of Ron Paul. I always thought it would come down to those two.

Paul's ceiling in any state is about 25%. Romney has shown the ability to get 35% (currently at it in NH). Further dispelling the notion that Paul has the legs to win anything is the second-choice numbers. When likely voters are asked who their second-choice would be, Romney leads the pack showing that he stands to benefit the most as other candidates fall out of the race. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is only favored ahead of Jon Huntsman as a second-choice candidate. Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum are all ahead of Paul as voters' second choice.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/in_iowa_romney_tops_list_for_second_choice_support" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Again, as he becomes more than the wacky guy over by the curtains with apparently simple answers (ala Herman Cain) who looks like a clean-shaven Gandalf, and once his past and present views come under greater scrutiny, his support is going to drop off as the voters realize he's nutty with a woefully oversimplistic view of the world (someone called him "conservatism's Obama") and as other candidates drop out, their voters are not going to be getting behind Paul.