Paul in FIRST Place

[Ry]

Public Policy Polling: Paul 23% Romney 20% Gingrich 14%!

Newt dropped form 30% to 14% lol look at how fast he burned.

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there's been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong principles,' while 43% think he does not.

[dicktater]

Paul leads in Iowa
December 18, 2011
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... -iowa.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


(Photo that should have accompanied this article compliments of Rabbi Shmuley over at
jewishjournal.com, who doesn't care who or what you fuck as long as it isn't Israel.)

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there's been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong principles,' while 43% think he does not.

Paul's ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa. 22% of voters think he's run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it's 'very important' that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa. Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.

Paul's base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican contest. Among voters under 45 he's at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich. He's really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney's blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters. Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.

Romney's vote share is up 4 points from a week ago to 20% from it previous 16% standing. His favorability numbers have improved a little bit as well from 48/44 to 49/40. One thing Romney really has going for him is more room for growth than Paul. Among voters who say they're not firmly committed to their current candidate choice, Romney is the second choice for 19% compared to 17% for Perry, 15% for Bachmann, and only 13% for Paul. It's particularly worth noting that among Gingrich- who seems more likely to keep falling than turn it around- voters, he's the second choice of 30% compared to only 11% for Paul.

In addition to having more support right now Paul also has firmer support (73% solidly committed) than Romney does (68% solidly committed.) But at the same time Romney appears to have more room for growth, which could allow him to overtake Paul in the last two weeks.

Two other notes on Romney: he's now winning the electability primary- 25% of voters think he would have the best chance to defeat Obama compared to 17% for Gingrich and 16% for Paul. And he also leads Paul 24-18 among voters who watched the Sioux City debate on Thursday night, confirming general perception that he had the stronger performance.

The rest of the field isn't getting much traction. Among the three candidates tied at 10%, Santorum has gained a couple points compared to last week, Perry has moved up a single point, and Bachmann is down a point. There is some indication that Iowans are warming up to Perry a little bit. He's gone from a -4 (43/47) favorability to a +8 (48/40).

With six candidates in double digits there are still a lot of different things that could happen the final two weeks in Iowa. But it looks like Paul and Romney have emerged as the clear front runners.

Full results here (PDF):
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... 218925.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1588.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Phys]

Newt-y never really thought he would win. He's just using the press to make money. He isn't even in Iowa. He is in DC.

[dicktater]

It's sure is fun to see headlines like this!


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... ont/46360/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[juice]

Hey morningmayan mirrored you on youtube re:Ron Paul/Obama, that's nice.

[Int'l man of mystery]

I do hope that anyone who isn't a registered Republican becomes one so that they can actually vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. It would be a real shame if all of this support for Ron Paul could not be reflected in the primaries because his supporters weren't registered to vote in them.

[general hoke]

It has begun. Another 1st or 2nd in NH and the media is going to start really attacking him on the air, right now they will just repeat that Huckabee won Iowa last year and it means nothing. But if Paul does well in NH they are gonna start sweating it, bye bye Fed Reserve!
Expect war with Iran or sabre rattling to amp up to try and scare USA into picking someone other than Paul.

[dicktater]

It has begun. Another 1st or 2nd in NH and the media is going to start really attacking him on the air, right now they will just repeat that Huckabee won Iowa last year and it means nothing. But if Paul does well in NH they are gonna start sweating it, bye bye Fed Reserve!
Expect war with Iran or sabre rattling to amp up to try and scare USA into picking someone other than Paul.

Hannity started his "racist" attack last week on his radio show and his after debate interview with Ron Paul.

Gingrich-Linked Propagandist Recycles Debunked “Racist” Ron Paul Smear
Establishment gets desperate as Paul surges into lead in Iowa
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, December 19, 2011
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gingrich-li ... tml/print/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With the establishment terrified of Ron Paul’s snowballing success as he heads to the Iowa primary leading the Republican race, an onslaught of already debunked, agenda-driven, and desperate hit pieces have re-emerged.



Prime amongst them is an attempt to re-hash the ludicrous assertion that Ron Paul wrote racist newsletters in the early 1990′s when the material was clearly produced by other authors without Ron Paul knowing its content.

This is by no means a new story, it’s a debunked smear from four years ago [1] that has been regurgitated by the same author, in unison with other neo-con hit pieces [2], right as Paul’s campaign peaks and polls show him leading in Iowa [3].

The re-hashed smear, entitled The Company Ron Paul Keeps – Meet Alex Jones [4], is written by The Weekly Standard’s James Kirchick, a man described by TIME Magazine’s Joe Klein [5] as a “dishonest prick” and a “propagandist,” who “has opinions but no facts or experience”.

Kirchick is a proud neo-con who serves as a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies [6] in Washington, an influential neo-conservative collective funded by numerous noted billionaires. The group’s list of “distinguished advisors” includes former CIA and FBI heads. The group is virtually a lobbying front for the state of Israel, which explains perfectly why Kirchick is so upset with Paul, who has promised to put a stop to the billions in foreign aid the United States sends to Israel every year.

Sitting on the group’s Leadership Council is none other than Newt Gingrich, one of Ron Paul’s main rivals in the Republican primary. Given that association, it’s unsurprising that Kirchick has chosen to dredge up his debunked smear at this key time in the election cycle, with Gingrich’s campaign now imploding [7] and Ron Paul’s popularity surging.

Gingrich himself has more skeletons in the closet than a halloween costume shop, but that doesn’t stop Kirchick from playing the race card yet again in a transparent ploy to throw dirt at Ron Paul.

Kirchick dusts off his two decade old newsletters once more to allege that the racist comments were all written by Ron Paul or at least with his “endorsement”. This is akin to claiming that everything which appears on Infowars.com is written or endorsed by Alex Jones, or that every link which appears on DrudgeReport.com is the opinion of Matt Drudge himself.

Newsletters were the Internet of the early 1990′s. Dozens of newsletters with Ron Paul’s name in the title were published and thousands of articles were written by all manner of writers coming from all manner of different viewpoints, some legitimate, some not. To blame Ron Paul for the content of those newsletters is like blaming Free Republic for what its users post on its website. It’s guilt by association – the cheapest of dirty tricks.

Kirchick’s central claim is that Paul attacked Martin Luther King as a violent philanderer who “seduced underage girls and boys,” and that he criticized Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, which Paul labeled “hate whitey day,” according to Kirchick.

In reality, Paul has noted King as one of his heroes on many occasions. Indeed, the only time that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, it was for America to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday.

The fact that, as Politifact documents [8], “in the late 1970s and early 1980s, (Paul) voted….to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January,” before any of the newsletters Kirchick cites were published, proves that the newsletters were written by other people and did not represent the views of Paul himself.

Indeed, the very publishers of many of the newsletters that Kirchick alludes to in his hit piece publicly admitted back in 2007 that Ron Paul had no influence over their content.

“Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them,” said one publisher.

Just like leftists used hoax racist signs [9] from their own rallies to discredit the Tea Party, Kirchick hand picks controversial comments that Ron Paul had no knowledge were being made in his name and attaches them to Paul’s campaign.

Kirchick reels off a handful of other outlandish claims and disingenuously implies Paul wrote them. Other supposedly “racist” writings are actually legitimate criticism of the state of Israel, including the manifestly provable fact that Mossad has operatives in countries around the world. Indeed, Mossad’s largest department is dedicated to conducting espionage overseas.

Notably absent from Kirchick’s regurgitation are accusations that were soundly debunked from the first incarnation of his hit piece. As we reported back in 2008 [1], Kirchick referred to “the farcical “Stormfront Donation” saga which forced the New York Times to issue a retraction…admitting to several errors in a post it published which carried assertions that Ron Paul meets regularly with white supremacist groups.”

Following the first round of the smear in 2008, Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder publicly backed Ron Paul [10], saying he had known him for 20 years and that Paul was being attacked because he was a threat to the establishment.

The only people who seem to be upset at Ron Paul over racism are white, well to do, establishment Republican political operatives and journalists who are involved in lobbying groups with Newt Gingrich. Isn’t that interesting?

It’s also fascinating to note that Kirchick letslip in an email about the newsletters to Berin M. Szoka that he wrote the hitpiece on Ron Paul not out of any moral outrage at Paul’s alleged “racism” butbecause he is “cynical” and enjoys “getting supporters of political candidatesriled up”.

“That Jamie Kirchick was a self-aggrandizingpseudo-journalist with a personal agenda to gain attention cannot be denied. Norcan it be denied that the pseudo-journalists making issue of these newslettersin 2012 are just as irresponsible and intellectually dishonest as Kirchick wasin 2008,” writesBrett MacDonald. [11]

Kirchick then throws in the name of Alex Jones seemingly out of leftfield. I can only surmise that this is an attempt to get traffic or attract attention. Kirchick’s tone seems to be a whining lament about how the first incarnation of his smear didn’t get enough play the first time around.

Again he resorts to guilt by association, upset at the fact that Ron Paul has appeared on Alex Jones’ show.

Kirchick treats Jones’ assertion (and Ron Paul’s agreement) that NORTHCOM is involved in a military takeover of the country as a “conspiracy theory,” even as the U.S. Senate passes a bill [12] that would allow the military to kidnap and intern Americans in detention camps without trial, and even as the Washington Post reports how Northcom has dispatched 20,000 troops [13] to aid in “domestic security” inside the United States.

Kirchick then cites Jones’ Endgame documentary and alleges that Jones claims there is a “secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos.”

As anyone who has actually bothered to watch the documentary will know, the “secret plot” which Kirchick is seemingly afraid to mention is called the Bilderberg Group. It’s no secret, the group meets every year to further their agenda for global government (the mere mention of the Bilderberg Group was described as an “out there conspiracy theory” by Kirchick back in 2008). The elite’s desire for superhuman status is no conspiracy theory dreamed up by Jones either, it’s one that’s openly romanticized by the super-rich and elite technology gurus like Ray Kurzweil [14].

You’d think that Kirchick and his ilk would have learned their lesson by now. Even back in 2008, the racist smear was quickly swiped aside by the Paul campaign, but the attack dogs returned in 2010, this time going after Rand Paul in an effort to prevent him becoming Kentucky Senator. But ridiculous tales about the ‘Aqua Buddha’ and allegations of Rand Paul kidnapping women were quickly proven to be no more than grossly exaggerated college pranks from 30 years previously. Paul won by a landslide.

Recycling debunked and tired old garbage about Ron Paul being “racist” when he is the only Republican candidate not to advocate killing more brown people in broken-backed third world countries to “protect America” just isn’t going to work.

As one respondent wrote in response to Kirchick’s hit piece back in 2008 (it applies more than ever today), “That’s the problem Ron Paul presents to those trying to smear him, you have to go back 20 years and try to twist somebody else’s words to try to make him look bad. With all the other candidates you can just look at what they themselves have actually been doing in the recent past and even the present.”

Indeed, the neo-con establishment peanut gallery on which Kirchick is proudly perched is now so discredited that top-down attacks on Ron Paul will only aid him in cultivating his substantive image as the only genuine alternative to the Washington establishment that has corrupted and bankrupted America.

RELATED: Vicious Ron Paul Hit Piece Scrapes The Barrel Of Yellow Journalism [1] (our original rebuttal to Kirchick’s smear attack from 2008).

[Ry]

Only the most deeply troubled idiot would think Ron Paul was a racist

[dicktater]

Only the most deeply troubled idiot would think Ron Paul was a racist

Agreed. But, their dragging this out again means that they have absolutely nothing else. Nothing, nada, zilch zally zip, zero,... except assassination.