A fly in the GOP’s ointment

New Hampshire is known for turning Republican presidential primaries upside down.

It could happen again this year.

“We’re a little tiny state, but we get to go out and rub shoulders with all of the candidates, and be a big part of the big decision,” says Cindy Horvath, 46, an undecided Republican voter from Somersworth.

And, she added, have a big impact.

Polls show a tight race for the GOP nomination in the state. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are in strong contention. Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul could complicate an already muddled contest.

Uncertainties abound:

  • For starters, a date for the primary hasn’t even been set.
  • Independents can vote in either party’s primary, making them a wild card.
  • Many declared Republicans say they’re still undecided.
  • Paul, a libertarian-leaning long-shot Texas congressman, could emerge as a serious contender in the “Live Free or Die” state.

The state’s recent history is rife with Republican primary voters giving non-establishment candidates a boost, and rocking the race.

In the last contested GOP primary, in 2000, underdog McCain camped out in New Hampshire and soared to a stunning 19 percentage point win over establishment favorite George W. Bush. In 1996, conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan won the primary over Bob Dole with 27 percent of the vote. Four years earlier, Buchanan took 37 percent, but he lost both the New Hampshire primary and the nomination to the incumbent president, George H.W. Bush.

This time, New Hampshire is fertile ground for several candidates, and the multi-person field has fractured the GOP primary electorate. In a state traditionally home to more economic conservatives than social conservatives, everyone is pitching a message of low taxes and restrained spending.

“It’s no different than past cycles,” said Fergus Cullen, the state GOP chairman. “There are few states where all the candidates are coming to campaign and are fully resourced. Today, we have five or six candidates that are playing hard here.”

They haven’t begun to run negative TV or radio ads. But hard-hitting commercials are all but certain given the wide-open race in an early voting state that historically has tolerated negative campaigning more so than others.

Romney, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, has a slight edge in most polls. He could be considered a part-time resident of the state considering his lakeside vacation home and his weekly campaigning here. The multimillionaire venture capitalist has emphasized his management experience in the public, private and nonprofit sectors. He’s spent about $4 million on TV and radio ads here since going on the air early this year.

Giulaini, the former New York mayor leading in national polls, is playing to win after months of focusing elsewhere. He has made eight recent visits and has flooded mailboxes with literature while spending some $300,000 on radio ads. He’s increasing his state staff and courting the Seacoast region that’s home to moderates and independents. A fellow Northeasterner, he’s known for putting New York back on solid financial ground and for his resolve following the Sept. 11 attacks.

McCain, the Arizona senator, remains a favorite among a segment of hard-core supporters from 2000. But his bid back then was fueled in part by independents, and their support for him this time is not guaranteed. Still, McCain, a longtime deficit hawk who rails against runaway spending, is looking to New Hampshire for a comeback after summer stumbles. He’s running TV ads emphasizing his military service as surveys show an uptick in support.

Among the others, Thompson, the actor and ex-senator from Tennessee, promised to be in New Hampshire “early and often” but has visited the state only three times in two months. He trails his top rivals in polls and organization. Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, has a network of grass-roots support but lacks money. Paul could be a force; he opposes the Iraq war, and his libertarian bent resonates here. He’s running TV and radio ads and just raised $4.3 million in one day.

New Hampshire has held the first-in-the-nation primary since 1920, and Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who has sole discretion over setting the date, is fiercely defending that history this year. Jan. 8 has emerged as the most likely day, but Gardner refuses to rule out a mid-December primary.

Campaigns are anxiously awaiting his decision, which is expected soon, and also are trying to gauge the voting behavior of influential independent voters, dubbed “undeclareds” in New Hampshire.

Surveys show roughly 4 out of 10 of these voters say they plan to vote in the Democratic primary, and about the same number say they aren’t sure which ballot they will pick up on primary day. Only 19 percent are planning to vote in the Republican primary, according to a recent poll by Saint Anselm College’s Institute of Politics.

Also, many Republicans say they are undecided or willing to change their minds.

A stay-at-home mother of four boys in nearby Bedford, Shannon McGinley typifies the indecisiveness. One day this week, she zipped from a breakfast-time Thompson appearance to a midmorning Giuliani speech — but said she was leaning toward Huckabee.

“I’m still shopping,” said McGinley, 37. “You have to be both bright and a communicator. Sometimes that doesn’t always happen in politics.”

At the Bedford Village Inn as Thompson prepared to speak, Ray Powles of Goffstown called himself “still hovering” and said he was partial to Romney, Thompson and Giuliani.

“I’d like to see a candidate that addresses some of the issues, that’s going to help try to strengthen the country, shore it up and not set us back,” said the 37-year-old Republican who works at a cable company.

Waiting to hear from Giuliani in Manchester, Noel Rainville, a 65-year-old retiree from Bedford, said she’s taking her time deciding who to support after voting for Bush in the 2000 primary and ending up disappointed.

“I never did realize we would be in this situation,” she said of the Iraq war. This time, Rainville said, she is leaning toward Giuliani and McCain. “They have served well in the positions that they have been in. To me, they’re very honest. And I’m not sure the others are.”

25 Responses to "A fly in the GOP’s ointment"

  1. Sandra Price  November 8, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Yes, CB, many people feel my views are old fashioned but I have lived under freedoms in America for many years and saw them gradually watered down under LBJ that made our government lean to the left of socialism. You apparently need the government to give you the safety net and set your moral values for you.

    Many of us do not. We like the freedoms that we talk about and wish them back. Your rude words remind me of many others who are considered Social conservatives and will reach out to men like Pat Robertson to tell them what to do. You have my sympathy that you will always need a big daddy to lead you.

    Might be a good time to split America up into two Constitutions. Let Robertson write his own and leave the old document to the rest of us.

  2. CB  November 8, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    Kucinich does not want to abolish Social Security though.

    For those of you who don’t get it, many of us Baby Boomers are too old for us to not have our Social Security benefits. If you want to make the country worse off, just see what happens when many of us are out on the streets.

  3. CB  November 8, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Sandra Price,

    I do not consider you old fashioned at all. I see you as cruel, greedy and buying into the me, me, me view of the world. Go back and read what our Founding Fathers said about providing for the Common Good.

    How many ways do I have to say it: We Baby Boomers have worked our whole adult lives. Everyone has known since 1946 that we are here.
    What the hell do you expect us to do now that it is our turn after paying into the system all these decades?

    Your ilk scares the hell out of me.

  4. almandine  November 8, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    Aw, give it a rest. Social Security will be around until it goes broke… which is what RP says… and also which ain’t too long from now, if it mirrors the rest of our fiscal health. I’m more inclined to worry about the actual value of those SS dollars, as should be you. Bought milk, eggs, gas, etc, lately? Now those prices are cruel and out of touch !!! And who’s to blame? Those good ole Dems and Reps who’ve been watching your back against the world all this time. If you haven’t noticed… we’ve been sold out.

  5. CB  November 8, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    Almandine,

    2040 is fine by me. I’ll probably be dead.

  6. almandine  November 8, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    CB –

    It won’t take until 2040 for your money to become more worthless than it is now… sometime next week seems about right. I guess my question to you is, “why is it better to elect politicians that would steal your future surreptitiously through inflation, corruption, and the lies that must be told to hide that, than to elect someone that states our problems clearly and attempts to solve them through whatever radical means are required?”

    Again, RP has no intention to – nor would Congress buy in to – any elimination of SS without something serious to take its place.

    Concerning the finality of the problem tied to your death, I guess you have no children to worry about.

    Cheers,

  7. CB  November 8, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    Almandine,

    Look you can be as flip as you want about Social Security, but the facts are that millions of us are going to be needing it.

    I have no children. Are you happy now?

  8. almandine  November 8, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    No I’m not. Your future, mine, and that of my children is at stake… and all that most politicians and those who support them seem to want to do is maintain the status quo, which is killing us… bankrupting us, and demoralizing us. Nothing flip about it.

  9. CB  November 8, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    All I’m saying is there is going to be hell to pay if the Boomers are screwed. We are not going to go quietly into the night.

  10. Sandra Price  November 8, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    CB. Are you telling me you expect to live off of Social Security? I’m going to be 75 in 6 months and didn’t expect to have my SS support me by any matter of means. I’ve had an interest in economics for a number of years and lived frugally and on the verge of poverty so that I could tend to my cost of education for the kids and my own retirement. This does not make me greedy or selfish because I will never take of penny of money I did not earn.

    Throwing insults at me here will do nothing for the problem of Social Security going broke. It might make you feel better but it will not solve your problem. I remember reading about SS and exactly what FDR was intending to do. It was a safety net to keep people in poverty off the streets. I also took a look at the quality of our federal government and realized they would take the money and use to on programs that would get them reelected. LBJ was the poster boy for a redistribution of wealth. He promised everybody everything they would never need and nobody saw an improvement in anything. I believe the American people can use their money for their own retirement but putting this in the open pot for polticians to use is not a good idea.

    Who do you like for President in 2008?

  11. almandine  November 8, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    By the way, CB…

    From one Boomer to another, I consider the dollar having lost half of its purchasing power during the Bush 43 years as already having gotten screwed. Yeah, who is it that would make a good President?

  12. yarply  November 9, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    Change takes time?

    They say the same thing when people start complaining that the dems have backed out of their campaign promises. Give them time they say. Change doesn’t occur over night. Man… I have been hearing that crap for the last 30 years, while the country gets worse and worse and I am sick of it. If I give it any more time I will be dead and the country will be making an even bigger sucking noise as it finally and totally goes down the toilet. All the while people will be saying give it time,, change takes time. Don’t follow him or believe his “crazy” sayings,, He is a radical. All the while sneering at them and saying, it only demonstrates how desperate they are for someone, ANYONE. They said that about MLK, Gandhi, and others. I bet some of the Colonist were saying the same thing when the founders and the people who followed their lead decided to throw off the shackles of tyranny which were chained to WE The People back in the 1700s.
    People also state; There are democrat candidates who advocate the same core values and beliefs that Ron Paul does.

    I totally disagree. There may be a few out there who,, when the wind is blowing strongly one way may shift their comments to placate and calm the disquiet of the voters they wish to deceive. I would like someone to NAME these few that share his core values and then explain why if they share his same core values, they are so opposed to him (Ron Paul).

    I guess one of the reasons why some dislike Ron, is that he is from Texas or pro life or was a member of The John Birch Society,, which is described by wikipedia, as a conservative American organization which was founded in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1958 to fight what it saw as growing threats to the Constitution of the United States, which promotes a conspiracist view of history and current reality, linking political and social events to the globalist agendas of secret cabals working behind the scenes. and has been greatly marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s.

    Has been greatly marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s.

    No wonder our country has been going down hill.
    Most of the conservatives abandoned their core values, and evidently the constitution way back then. I did not realize this, and I did not know what the John Birch Society was.
    Our government has been infiltrated and taken over.

    The John Birch Society is anti-totalitarian, particularly anti-Socialist, anti-Communist, and anti-Fascist. It strenuously defends what it sees as the original intention of the U.S. Constitution.

    Hey!!! If that is what they believe,,, then more power to them, because in my view they have been proven right….
    More time they say,, and change must be effected with programs that will not cause another form of damage they say.

    Need programs?? Bull!! We have to many as it is.
    Programs are just more government spending and control while they slip another noose around our necks…

    Give it time?
    No! no more time.. Its time for change.. NOW!!!

  13. SEAL  November 8, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    I don’t see anyone offering any solutions here. As I see it, the answer to all of our financial problems is to eliminate non-essential expenditures, figure out how much it is going to cost us to get out of debt, make some decisions about the future of programs such as SS and health care, and have everyone in the nation pay the same reasonable percent of their income until we are financially healthy again. Yeah, the rich would contribute more than the poor and middle class and that would be fair.

    The most obvious useless expenditure we have is maintaining all those military bases around the world. Also, there is so much money being wasted on overstaffed or idiotic government agencies we just don’t need.

    Dis-involving ourselves in the ideology of other nations and their politics would save a fortune. A small embassy with a staff of 4-12 people would be sufficient to maintain “friendly mind our own damn business” relations with any country. The CIA employee is not embassy staff.

    We absolutely must eliminate the trade deficit. It is simply stupid business. The give and take must be the same. That would, also, return a large amount of the jobs we have lost the past 20-30 years. That would improve our economy. That would provide more money to pay off the debt. NAFTA must be rescinded.

    There are two ways to go with SS. Fully commit to it forever and make the funds off limits for any other purpose with the understanding that the burden would be unfair for many years until our economy stabilized and the cost of living came down to something that makes sense. Social Security is adjusted according to the cost of living index. Otherwise, eliminate any new SS enrollees and figure out how much it will take from the income of all taxpayers to fulfill the current obligations until they all die. All those who have paid into SS must receive the promised benefits according to the amount they have contributed. The person who has only paid into it for 10 years would receive far less than a baby boomer, for example, but he/her would have many years to otherwise plan for his/her retirement.

    Establishing free universal “essential” health care would actually save the nation (our people) money. Proper life long health, dental, and eye maintenance (i.e. preventive medicine) dramatically reduces the seriousness (the expensive) and the number of long term major illnesses for senior citizens. The proof of that is comparing the lifelong wealthy to the life long poor. As with SS, a certain percent of income tax dollars would have to be paid by ALL individuals regardless of their income into the “untouchable” health care fund. You would find that the individual cost for universal health care (Medicare for all) would be less than what the average is now and there would be no exclusions. Medicare for all would dramatically bring down the cost of medicine by having only one insurer to negotiate the prices. A surgeon should make more money than a carpenter but not 100 times more. Both are skilled craftsmen and a master carpenter is no less educated than the heart surgeon.

    Pharmaceutical companies make too much profit and must be required to research for CURES rather than symptom alleviation and the creation of phantom medical conditions and treatments for such idiotic notions as “restless leg syndrome.” A universal Medicare agency would negotiate lower drug prices while fairly considering the company’s research costs.

    Money must be supported by something other than air and paper. Whether that should be a return to the gold standard I will leave to those who understand such things, I do not. But it only makes sense that money cannot be generated out of someone’s ass. Without backing it up with something of real value, whatever is printed does not create more money, only more paper, and it devalues all of the money proportionately. The most insane fact in our nation is that the dollar is not worth a dollar. Just the idea of that is ridiculous. How can any nation justify creating a condition where a dollar is not worth a dollar? Mind-boggling.

    Illegal immigration must be stopped. It siphons money from our country to Mexico and Cuba primarily. It eliminates jobs for legal Americans. It reduces our standard of living. It dissimilates our nationalism. Everything about it has a negative effect upon America. Legal immigration must be curtailed to something that makes sense for Americans. All immigrants must demonstrate the ability to support themselves and not be entitled to any “welfare” type benefits (including health care) until they become citizens or are paying into the system. Also, they should be allowed to immigrate only if they have some special skill or whatever of value to contribute to this nation. Political refugee is pure bullshit. If they got themselves in trouble in their country, that is not my problem. Who are we to make political judgments about other countries?

    Realistic pollution standards must be mandated. Expecting corporations to reduce pollutants voluntarily under incentive programs is to believe that Paris Hilton found God in jail and will become a Southern Baptist minister. The federal government must provide reasonable research money to qualified and proven individuals or companies to find alternative energy sources. We must drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and we must do it very soon. Otherwise, there is no future for the human race. Forcing the pollution and energy issue may not be good for the corporate bottom line but it will insure there is a corporation left to have a bottom line to worry about. America’s corporate health depends on a healthy economy which depends on a healthy happy working American.

    All wars must end and Iraq must be turned over to the United Nations peace keeping forces until they can survive on their own. We should admit we fuked up, apologize, prosecute our nations criminals for their war cimes, and offer to help any way we can.

    The foregoing is my thinking about “solutions” for the major issues we face for whatever it is worth. No, I’m not running for president.

  14. Sandra Price  November 8, 2007 at 6:09 am

    It seems as if all the GOP Candidates are searching for Evangelical support. I personally do not want a theocracy in D.C. so I’m turned off by a certain war with Islam if these Evangelicals get their wish. We all heard Robertson explain that he could live with Rudy’s pro-choice agenda if he promised to appoint pro-life judges. Sorry, I cannot be bought by this plan of hypocrisy for America.

    Rudy lost me last night and only Ron Paul and Fred Thompson seem to have read the Consitution that give us freedoms from these Evangelical plans for anolther Christian Crusade.

    I don’t know the New Hampshire voters but have seen a growth of Libertarian voters there who I would only hope would not vote for a full blown war against Islam.

    I’ve never understood why religion has to take over the government of any nation. People living in fear cause this and America was the last free nation who could fall into this fear and accept Evangelical leadership over our own personal choices. Our choices should be very clear in 2008 whether we want an Evangelical nation or a free nation. We cannot have both.

  15. keith  November 8, 2007 at 9:32 am

    Rest assured, Sandy, we New Hampshire voters are a cussed lot, and we pride ourselves on our Yankee independence. What’s more, for as long as I can remember, we’ve always maintained a Libertarian (spelled: “Live Free or Die”) bent to our politics.

    One favorite tactic is to tell pollsters (telephonic and otherwise) that we are going to vote a certain way, and then do just the opposite in the polling booth. And we carefully pass down the rules to that game by word of mouth from generation to generation. The ultimate goal is to keep all them “city folk” guessing until the only poll that REALLY matters (our vote) is counted.

    As a direct result, we’ve served up some very interesting surprises over the years with candidates like Henry Cabot Lodge and Pat Buchanan to name just a few.

    What’s more, if you will recall, New Hampshire voted for John McCain over George W. Bush in 2000. Hindsight now being 20-20, it would seem that, even then, we New Hampshire “hicks” saw right through all the Texas-style BS…and smelled a rat.

    Another favorite story is that, when asked if we are going to vote for so and so in the primary, one common response is that we aren’t yet sure because “we’ve only met them twice.”

    Many politicians and others have decried the New Hampshire primary as small, outdated and meaningless. I firmly believe it’s just the opposite.

    In campaigns that rely increasingly on 30 second TV sound bites, New Hampshire is one of the very few places left in the country where EVERYONE in the state has a real chance of looking a candidate squarely in the eye and asking them where they REALLY stand on the issues…up close and personal-like.

    And I’ve personally done so over the years …on numerous occasions. At one point, while I was still in college, I even got to squire around one erstwhile Presidential candidate (Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio) in my old, beat up Chevy. Needless to say, during the course of that afternoon and evening, I got an earful of where he REALLY stood on ALL the issues.

    Of course, the “fat cat” politicians absolutely detest New Hampshire voters because we royally screw up their carefully planned “baffle them with BS” approach to campaigning. But I firmly believe the nation as a whole benefits from this absolutely critical vetting process because, over the years, we’ve become particularly adept at “peeling away the onion” so as to expose what’s really underneath all their BS very early on in the Presidential campaign. Believe me, this is a job we all take VERY seriously up here.

    However, one thing is for sure…whenever the New Hampshire Primary IS finally held (and if history is any guide) I think we are all going to be in for some VERY interesting surprises come election night.

  16. Sandra Price  November 8, 2007 at 9:39 am

    Wonderful Keith. I was tempted by the Free State Project to consider a move to New Hampshire but you have no hot desert and my old bones need the dry heat. I know your history of independent voters and I always look forward to your primaries. I remember your voting for Lodge and then Buchanan and we in California were cheering you on. I look forward to your results in the primary and the final election. Keep us posted. Thanks

  17. SEAL  November 8, 2007 at 10:25 am

    I think the recent rise of Ron Paul support only demonstrates how desperate many people are for someone, ANYONE, that will stand up to the cookie cutters and quote the US Constitution. They are willing to overlook or ignore his past (are they past?) connections to the John Birch Society and some of the totally illogical methods he proposses to bring back the small government of personal freedoms he advocates.

    Some who initially deplored Paul and his radical ideas a few months ago are now touting him as the constitutional messiah. Frankly, I see little difference between him and his supporters than those evangelical radicals they complain about all the time. Both are so myopically obsessed with their core issues they are willing to accept any other candidate baggage to get them.

    Those of us who post our thoughts and suggestions here at CHB understand more than the general population the danger we face and how critical it is to change the course of our nation. But we must also understand that swapping one brand of radicalism for another is not the right way to do it. There are several democrat candidates who advocate the same core values and beliefs that Ron Paul does. However, they temper those with the reality that repairing the damage will take time and must be effected with progams that will not cause another form of damage.

    The right kind of change will take time. The long term effects must be considered. The decisions we make now, the leaders we choose, and the course we set must be carefully considered if we are to return America to the land of the free and the home of the brave. I appreciate the impact Ron Paul is having on the political landscape but I sure as hell won’t consider that he is the man to restore my nation to it’s former glory.

  18. CheckerboardStrangler  November 8, 2007 at 10:57 am

    “The right kind of change will take time. The long term effects must be considered.”

    —Funny, I dont recall hearing Ron Paul say that he wanted to implement drastic, changes overnight. I don’t recall ever hearing him saying anything remotely like that.
    I DO recall hearing him warn us that ANY change in the right direction would be painful.

    Yeah, some of the ideas might hurt a wee bit now, but ignoring those ideas will hurt a lot more, and for a much longer time.

  19. SEAL  November 8, 2007 at 11:42 am

    OK, let me put this a different way because Pauls supporters continue to focus on his “ideas” while avoiding his proposed methods. Paul doesn’t have one single idea that others don’t have. It is the way he wants to go about it that is the problem.

    Other than Clinton, all of the democrat candidates have voiced the same goals for America that Paul espouses. However, they voice a different methodology and they do not have the advantage of being in televised debates with such easy targets – rivals that feed them the opportunity to appear the only sane person on the stage. The most ordinary horse looks like a champion when standing in a herd of cattle.

  20. CB  November 8, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Someone should speak to Ron Paul’s views on Social Security. He wants to abolish it. He would not do away with it for those on it though.

    Isn’t that special??? What about Baby Boomers who are just a few short years away from being able to collect like me? This man has to be insane if he thinks there are enough years to make up what I lose by a change in plans at this late date.

    Baby Boomers wake up. We are soon to be the old ones and we are going to be doomed if the likes of Ron Paul gets his way. Young folks are being sold a bill of goods and they will rue the day if this comes to be. They best be rich since they will be supporting both their parents and grandparents without Social Security. Social Security has kept old folks out of poverty since the 1930s and ever since it passed the Republicans have tried to get rid of it.

    Wake up America before it’s too late!!!!!!!!

  21. yarply  November 9, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    Here comes the fear mongers.
    When you can not state the facts but only distort the truth it never fails the fear peddlers will have their say. He’s gonna do this, he’s gonna do that. Fearrrrrrrrrrrr him. Waaaaaaaake up before its to laaaaaaaaaate.

  22. Sandra Price  November 8, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    Back in the late 50’s, I too was a member of the John Birch Society. I drove many people from Santa Monica to Malibu where Jeff Hunter (the actor) had the Birch meetings. My family had been Hollywood Studio people and there was no doubt that Communists were all over the place and even in our D.C. Government. I soon saw the racism and anti-Semitism within the group and dropped out. Ron Paul, like me, also left the group. He is no more a member than I am!

    He is not threatening anyone with an immediate downsizing of the government and anyone asking and receiving welfare handouts will continue to receive them.

    I joined up as a Republican on my 21st birthday and in time to vote for Ike. The platform was very clear with a desire for limited government and individual freedoms leading the list.

    Outside of Goldwater and Reagan’s early years the thought of downsizing the authority of the government did not exist. The American voters have been dumbed down to believe they cannot exist without welfare on many levels of being citizens and today we find ourselves approaching a near slavery.

    I left the GOP in 1992 and joined Perot and then the LP. The only way I would ever vote for a Republican again would have to be on a promise to limit the government to the point where it is now and gradually reduce the government’s involvement in our daily lives. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has promised to do this.

    If you want to live on the teats of our government then do not vote for Ron Paul. If you want the government out of your personal choices then vote for Ron Paul.

    The choice is clear; if you want Socialism, vote for a Democrat; if you want freedoms, vote for Ron Paul.

  23. yarply  November 9, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    Sandra, good post. Glad to see you have come around, or maybe you have been there all along. I also left the GOP in 1992 and joined Perot. I like Ron because he seems to be an ordinary person to me. I could see having him as my next door neighbor… He doesn’t come off as an elitist,,, he is a constitutionalist, not a waffler, or a flip flopper. He wont say one thing to me and then say something opposite to someone else. I like that. Even if I disagree with some of what he Say’s. Its obvious he cares about this country. That matters to me.

    I do not know about the supposed racist views
    of the J.B.S. but from what I have read about their pro constitutional views and other stands I had to agree with their core beliefs, (back then almost everyone was a little racist) but I just know what I have read. This country wasn’t founded on socialism, fascism or as a theocracy. I do not want to live in a country where I have to rely on the government from cradle to grave or have them taking control of,, or taking my freedoms from me, and I sure do not plan on just giving them away. I think if people wish to live that way maybe they should move to canada. Quit trying to change this country and move to one that is already the way they want it. I want freedom……

  24. CB  November 8, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Sandra Price,

    I find your views cruel and out of touch with real America.

    I am too old for your views and if that means I’m a socialist, I don’t give a rats ass.

    You should check your heart.

  25. almandine  November 8, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    “Paul doesn’t have one single idea that others don’t have.”

    That, I believe, is a crock. The only Dem who comes close to Paul is Kucinich, another maverick who wants to change the fascist course we are on. It’s easy throw generalized rocks about his “methods” to change that direction, but a lot harder to find fault with specifics. Go ahead, give it a try.

Comments are closed.