RSS 2.0 FeedAnother Reason Why Ron Paul Is Having Problems
by KevinRon Paul is one of the few presidential candidates in any party running on a platform of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. However, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll on Nov. 20-26 which asked various questions on Iraq:
The results were:
Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think
the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?Bring Troops Home: 54%
Keep Troops In Iraq: 41%
Don’t Know: 5%
and then, respondents were asked how long it should take to withdraw forces from Iraq:
Immediate Withdrawal: 16%
Gradual Withdrawal: 36%
Don’t Know: 2%
Given how little public support there is for his position, especially in the Republican party; Paul should use his debate appearances to work on the issues where there is support in the Republican party for: fiscal responsibility, limited government, and federalism.
A poorly worded survey question. Immediate withdrawal is not even an option. Paul. for one, thinks it will take about six months.
Comment by Dodsworth — November 29, 2007 @ 6:38 pmWell, I guess Ron Paul just needs to explain his position better. His supporters already know the truth. Immediate withdrawal for Ron Paul means starting to plan and implement withdrawal immediately. Not predicated on first establishing “goals” before starting the plan.
BTW, if Ron Paul wins, it will have been 1 whole year from *now.* How “gradual” does it need to be?
I’m sure in your mind, by “gradual” they must mean 50 years from now. Obviously nobody besides Ron Paul is even considering when to start doing it. And the longer they don’t draw up a plan for withdrawal, the longer they will be staying there. That’s the point for every other candidate.
This is why you people don’t seem to understand Ron Paul and why he becomes more and more succesful. His supporters (those that chose to actually listen to him) KNOW his plans and policies are NOTHING like what is put forth in the media.
Thanks for advancing the propaganda. I am sure the Hillary Administration will reward you, handsomely.
Later, knuckle nuts
Comment by Scott M. — November 29, 2007 @ 6:43 pmThe first question is also poorly worded… as it assumes the situation -can- be stabilized by the US. Many believe that it takes a US withdrawal to stabilize the situation in the first place.
Comment by Scott — November 29, 2007 @ 6:44 pmDodsworth,
Gradual withdrawal is withdrawal over 1-3 years. Immediate withdrawal is withdrawing military forces as soon as possible.
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 6:44 pmOr maybe he should just say what he believes and let the people decide whether to vote for him, or not.
Comment by Fluffy — November 29, 2007 @ 6:45 pmNo “wait and see” for six months before starting the long process of planning. Immediately start planning. We want out. Period. As quickly as safely possible, but this means start planning for it immediately.
Any Dems thinking your partys candidates are planning to do this are out of your freaking minds. They are talking about “redployment” go look up that term to see how ambiguous that is.
Comment by Scott M. — November 29, 2007 @ 6:46 pmFluffy,
I’m not suggesting the man lie, I’m suggesting he should change his focus on what he campaigns on.
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 6:46 pm“Immediate withdrawal is withdrawing military forces as soon as possible.”
yep. Glad you understand it. How do YOU know that “gradual means 1-3 years?” So, tell me, has Bush or anyone else really planned yet for withdrawal over 1-3 years? Has anyone even started planning for an eventual withdrawal?
Quite being so stupid.
Comment by Scott M. — November 29, 2007 @ 6:48 pmScott,
Pentagon already has a plan for withdrawal, no planning is necessary. If they don’t, they’re not doing their job.
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 6:48 pmScott,
I’m going by what the various Democratic candidates who are campaigning on gradual withdrawal are giving as their timelines.
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 6:49 pmKevin,
Oh really? Do you work for the Pentagon, Kevin? Because obviously you have access to intelligence the general public does not. Why then, Kevin, are the expanding several of the billion dollar bases there?
Just a parting “gift?”
You sure you aren’t just making stuff up?
Comment by Scott M. — November 29, 2007 @ 6:51 pm“I’m going by what the various Democratic candidates who are campaigning on gradual withdrawal are giving as their timelines.”
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
And why would you do THAT, Kevin? Do you think they are the measuring stick of what is right?
Comment by Scott M. — November 29, 2007 @ 6:52 pmScott,
Does the pentagon have a plan for withdrawing from Korea, Japan, the UK and Germany + 126 other countries? Places we’ve had troops for 50-60 years!
When Paul wins, the pentagon will begin drawing up all those plans too.
Steve
Comment by Wiseburn — November 29, 2007 @ 6:53 pmI’m going by what the various Democratic candidates who are campaigning on gradual withdrawal are giving as their timelines.
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
And why would you do THAT, Kevin? It’s just THEIR position and opinion. What if someone else says 6 months? They are automatically wrong because the Dems say so?
Comment by Scott M. — November 29, 2007 @ 6:54 pmWhen the admin for a forum starts losing, they just ban people…
Gotta love it.
Comment by Scott McDonnell — November 29, 2007 @ 6:55 pmReal mature, Kevin.
Comment by Scott McDonnell — November 29, 2007 @ 6:56 pmUntil a poll asks if you want to withdrawal to be completed in 6 months or less, which is Paul’s position, the poll is not relevant to Paul.
When Paul says he wants “immediate withdrawal,” he’s not saying instantaneous (that’s not even humanly possible). He means immediately begin the process of withdrawing, as he has explained numerous times.
Comment by Drena — November 29, 2007 @ 7:07 pmIt will take a few months to arrange the air and sea lift operations to physically move the military out. They will also have to take care of scuttling equipment they don’t lift and don’t want falling into enemy hands.
Ron Paul understands this process must be gradual to the extent the troops can be safe in the process.
Comment by jmklein — November 29, 2007 @ 7:12 pmScott,
Who have I banned?
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 7:33 pmPaul probably would work his debate performances to talk about the economy if they let him talk about substance.
I listened to CNN ask him if he believes in conspiracy theories and what he’ll do when he loses before I shut it off.
Comment by Soupy McSandwich — November 29, 2007 @ 7:38 pmI agree, Ron Paul needs to discuss his other ideas besides war because those ideas resonate with conservatives like Joseph Farah.
Comment by uhm — November 29, 2007 @ 7:42 pmScott, why do you proceed to trash the administrators and everyone else on this site who do not toe the line on your hardcore Paul-ian stances? If you are so upset with this blog then choose a different one. I also doubt that Kevin is pro-hillary. Come on, let’s be real here.
Comment by David Wilson — November 29, 2007 @ 7:54 pmScott,
I found the problem, your comments were caught by the spam filter. I’ve recovered them.
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 8:08 pmKevin,
Well, I am now posting under a different name and with a different email address. Why do you suppose that is?
If you didn’t ban me, why was I prevented from posting again until I finally changed my name and email? Hmm?
Why are we missing three of my posts in rebuttal to you?
Sure, Kevin, just pretend I got all quiet because you won the argument. It’s your blog, do what you want.
later
P.S. David, it’s better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Comment by Scott McDonnell — November 29, 2007 @ 8:11 pmFair enough, then, Kevin. I apologize.
Comment by Scott McDonnell — November 29, 2007 @ 8:11 pmI’m not sure what’s wrong but it flagged a few of my comments as spam too. And I’m a contributor. I don’t think we changed anything either.
Comment by tarran — November 29, 2007 @ 8:14 pmIf you wish to delete my accusations then, please do. No complaints from me.
If not, then let it be clear that I was wrong.
BTW, I jumped to that conclusion because that is what happens to us on every blog out there. We have had to start taking screenshots just to prove what they are doing.
I was wrong in this case. And thanks again, Kevin
Comment by Scott McDonnell — November 29, 2007 @ 8:15 pmAnd David, I am not here to trash Kevin, just debate with him. That’s usually the point of blogs and participating in commentary.
Just because I disagree with you doesn’t make me rude and disruptive. This is America, we are allowed to disagree with each other. I am free to say what is on my mind and you are free to be offended (and visa versa.)
Comment by Scott McDonnell — November 29, 2007 @ 8:20 pmI believe I heard Paul quoted somewhere that he proposes beaming all troops and equipment out of all foreign bases and theaters of operations directly to the geographic center of the United States in Lebanon Kansas at exactly 12:01pm, January 20, 2009.
Of course, he also figures it will take approximately 537 years to perfect beaming technology, so he’s settled for moving the troops out as quickly as possible while maintaining their safety.
Comment by Akston — November 29, 2007 @ 8:31 pmLOL: “Quite being so stupid.”
Comment by Wildcat — November 29, 2007 @ 8:37 pmScott,
For comparison sakes. I’m not saying they’re right or Ron Paul’s wrong. I’m simply making a point about analysis.
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 8:48 pmI hate the format of the debates. They always select differnet questions for different candidates. They should all answer the same questions.
One thing Ron Paul could do is post answers to those questions he doesn’t get to reply to on youtube.
Comment by Norm Nelson — November 29, 2007 @ 10:41 pmKevin,
When Ron Paul talks about economics, he invariable descends into the war issue and foreign policy. The truth is cutting departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security merely put a small dent into the federal budget.
I think the fiscal perspective is actually the best way to talk about the foreign policy. It sounds better to people than the other approaches – at least to Republicans. But repeatedly harping on it won’t make Republicans feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is pretty dire, and you can’t feel good about any of it.
To put any meaningful dent into the budget, you have to talk about cutting the Defense and Military, Social Security, or Medicare. Ron Paul’s chosen Defense and Military and he’s framing it as reducing it to a non-interventionist policy. And then he has a transition plan that weans people off of Medicare and Social Security and then destroys those two entitlements. You’ve got to love that.
Although it will be expedient to call for a slower draw down, I think Ron Paul’s trying to drive home to the American public that the president needs to make tough decisions. The call for immediate withdrawal with care for the safety of the troops is his commitment to not half-assing anything. Although that will hurt him among Republicans, the image that he’s building will help in a general.
Ron’s really not a calculating politician. And he’s going to pay for that in the primary. He just has to hope that the independents and the party jumpers come through for him.
Comment by TanGeng — November 29, 2007 @ 11:16 pmWhat I would like to see is a debate where all the candidates get the same question, possibly even before the debate. They each get say 1 1/2 minutes to answer the question. There is no rebuttal time as these should be issue questions about what they would do about the issue not what someone else would do. You could have a question about Iraq, terrorism, health care, spending, immigration, etc. With eight people in the field you might only get eight questions. With six you could possibly get ten questions. There is no reason wny all their answers could not be done on video as well. In fact if they new the questions prior to the debate or video they could have a well thoguht out answer that would best describe their position. Isn’t this really what the general public should want to know: their positions on actual issues and what they would do about these situations. Or are should we be more interested in how good of sound-biter they are, or how they look on the TV, or how good they are in a arguement, etc.
This may not be the most compelling debate, but if people wanted to compare all the candidates stances on the major issues this would be the best way to go about it. This would be the best way for the media to be fair to each candidate and get out the real information that the voter should need to know before they vote.
I would envision then that each candidate would have the opportunity to send people to their website or come up with pamphlets that would discuss even further their ideas about these as well as other issues in more depth than 1 1/2 minutes will allow.
Comment by TerryP — November 30, 2007 @ 7:33 amSorry for all the gramatical errors in my previous post. I didn’t check through it before I sent it.
Comment by TerryP — November 30, 2007 @ 7:35 amSo 8 Republican candidates going after ideological ground held by only 41% of the party, and Ron Paul being ceded the rest?
That’s bad news?
Comment by Brad — November 30, 2007 @ 1:21 pmBrad,
That poll is all voters. Among Republicans alone, the pro-war numbers would be in the 60s-70s.
Comment by Kevin — November 30, 2007 @ 5:01 pmYou’re kidding, right? Over 50% of Iowa REPUBLICANS want all of our troops withdrawn, within 6 months. Over 30% of REPUBLICANS want a full withdrawal. Since Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate offering this option, or anything close to it, simple marketing theory dictates that he should play up this difference, to differentiate his candidacy.
Comment by Craig — November 30, 2007 @ 8:24 pm“What I would like to see is a debate where all the candidates get the same question”
The PBS debate did it that way, and it was great. Everyone got equal time, everyone answered every question, and everyone got a chance to go first.
Comment by Craig — November 30, 2007 @ 8:26 pmKevin:
Okay, besides having a clear majority in the general election (or open primaries), 70% or Republicans, in your scenario, on this issue, being split among 8 candidates, and Ron Paul having a clear and sole shot at the other 30, with no other candidate even making an OVERTURE in that direction.
Again, why is that bad news?
Comment by Brad — November 30, 2007 @ 11:10 pmI am a Paul supporter and I have to say that Scott isn’t doing us any favors.
“Just because I disagree with you doesn’t make me rude and disruptive. This is America, we are allowed to disagree with each other.”
“Oh really? Do you work for the Pentagon, Kevin? Because obviously you have access to intelligence the general public does not. Why then, Kevin, are the expanding several of the billion dollar bases there?”
Follow your own suggestion Scott. Debate the points without resorting to condescension and arrogance.
Comment by clintonius — December 2, 2007 @ 8:42 am“Immediate” doesn’t mean flicking on a light switch and our troops come home. Dr. Paul concedes that it could take 3-6 months, maybe within a year as he consults the Pentagon.
Comment by Brian — December 2, 2007 @ 9:04 am