Monday, November 19, 2007

Ron Paul Wins Nationwide Zogby "Blind Poll"

Zogby ran a nationwide poll which mostly sampled hard line Republicans using a format which offered a brief description of four candidates without telling respondents the names of the candidates. Respondents made their choice based on the biographical sketch and positions of the candidates rather than on name ID.

The results are that Ron Paul topped all respondents with 32% of the vote. Get more details, including the descriptions of the candidates used for the poll, from their press release on the jump.....


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

A new nationwide Zogby telephone poll reveals that a sizeable majority of Americans are looking to vote for a candidate who protects liberty, wants to shrink government and immediately withdraw troops from Iraq - all traits common to Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

As part of a spread poll commissioned by Jones Productions, respondents were provided with descriptions of four different candidates and asked to choose who they would vote for based on each one's attributes and political platform.

Candidate A is a 10-term US Congressman from a large Southern state who is an advocate for a smaller government and individual liberty. This candidate believes in strictly following the Constitution and has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted in favor of the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act, and wants to bring troops home as soon as possible. As a former doctor, this candidate has delivered more than 4,000 babies. One of this candidate's goals is to return America to the gold standard, and he believes that the current monetary policy needs to be drastically overhauled because of the dollar's decline.

Candidate B is a former governor from a Democratic state in the Northeast. Before that, he was credited for essentially saving the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is a Mormon and family man who is considered a moderate-to-conservative member of the GOP. While Governor, he signed the first state laws in the nation requiring all citizens of this state to obtain health insurance. He is a strong supporter of keeping troops in Iraq although he has been critical of how the war has been handled.

Candidate C is a former two-term senator from a Southern state who was a long-time lobbyist before running for public office. He was chief Republican council for the Congressional committee that investigated Watergate in the early 1970s. He was an actor playing supporting roles in several major motion pictures before entering the Senate, and returned to a prominent role as a New York City prosecutor in a popular network television series after leaving office. He has mostly supported the war in Iraq, but has said he would have managed it differently.

Candidate D is a former two-term mayor of a major city in the Northeast, and is considered a moderate member of the party on social issues. As Mayor, he presided over a dramatic drop in crime in his city, and is best known for his leadership in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He established a worldwide security consulting business after leaving public office at the end of 2001 He has been a supporter of President Bush since leaving office and supports the war in Iraq.


32.8 per cent chose the description matching Ron Paul, while just 18.6 percent chose the description matching Rudy Giuliani. Just 12.6 per cent went for Fred Thompson's description while 15.1 per cent went for Mitt Romney.

The results clearly illustrate that the country is crying out for Ron Paul, which is why the establishment have launched a PR offensive to marginalize him in order to suppress the Congressman's name recognition.

The sample used for the poll had mainly never or rarely used websites popular with Ron Paul supporters, such as You Tube, MySpace and Facebook, showing that if Internet users who don't use land lines were more fairly represented, the numbers would be even more in favor of the Congressman.

In another poll question , the survey found that the majority of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate who wants to begin an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Over 49% said they were more likely to vote for a candidate who would begin immediate withdrawal, compared to just under 41% who said they would vote for staying the course and around 10% who were not sure.

8:34 PM, November 19, 2007  
Anonymous vote for hillary online said...

I don't understand how they knew the people being polled were blind, is there some sort of directory?

Anyway, Ron Paul is a nice guy and all, but if you want a real candidate with real values, then you want Hillary Clinton. We need some change in America and we need it now.

I like to look at America as a suffering patient, where Hillary is an experienced doctor. What we need here is some good medicine.

12:18 AM, November 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, Ron Paul is a real M.D., honey. And if there's an illness, it's that we're all sick of Clintons, Bushes, etc.

Go paste that comment on someone else's blog. We're not buying here.

4:36 AM, November 20, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...

They should have asked other question like,

1. What do you think of a candidate who says he won't take money from corporations but has no problem recieving contrubutions from Holocaust deniers and white supremacist?

2. Is it morally acceptable to raise money from a link off of of a white supremacist web site,

3. Would you support a candidate who's columns run in a racist paper, American Free Press?

Ron Paul also has a double standard with the war on terror.
In a 1992 article written by Paul regarding the riots in L.A. he has this to say:
"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them."
I would hope Dr. Paul would use the same reasoning when it comes to terrorism by radical Islam, instead of blaming our policies for the attacks.

If Dr. Paul doesn't agree with these people then he should distance himself from them. Why he hasn't? Only Dr. Paul knowns.

6:22 AM, November 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the matter, Rick? You've been reading some new polls? Is Dr. Paul threatening your pretty boy, Rudy-tooty Giuliani? Does it bother you that Paul enjoys more support from blacks and servicemembers than any other Republican candidate?

Which are you saying, Rick: That our military members are ignorant of whom they support, or are you implying that they are "anti-military" blame America types?

I guess Rick will keep spamming us with this same debunked nonsense from now until the primary, but let the reader beware of what our resident Julie-Annie hack is up to.

7:15 AM, November 20, 2007  
Anonymous Rick Candler said...


I hate to disappoint but I am no Giuliani hack. I find him to be the lesser of evils.
Instead of throwing out your mumbo-jumbo crap, try answering some of the points I have laid out. Or do you have any answers?
Are you just a Paul hack that follows blindly?

10:21 AM, November 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rick, you've been pulling for Giules for months now. How is it that he's the lesser of evils all of a sudden? By the way, at least Dr. Paul didn't marry his cousin and doesn't dress in women's clothing. So much for your lesser of two evils theory, in my opinion.

When you mention something worth refuting, I'll address the question/accusation. But when you merely keep bringing up the same guilt-by-association garbage from three decades ago because you just have to throw some slime for your boy Rudy, a direct reply is not merited.

10:48 AM, November 20, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...

Now thats the kind of info I was looking for. Is this from decades ago? If so I would like to know.
If you go back and look at my posts from months ago you will find I have said on numerous occasions Rudy is the lesser of evils. And just for the record, I could easily be swayed to vote for Huckabee or Romney.
So you keep being the water boy for Paul and I will make my mind up for sure in the coming weeks.

3:01 PM, November 20, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

I'll give you a cookie if you'll vote for Huck!!

3:37 PM, November 20, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...


Chocolate Chip?

If the Huckster wins Iowa this could be a horse race. I don't think he is strong in other states nor has the money to be a serious contender but he could drag Romney down and make Florida a very very important state.
I like Huck on social issues but don't care for his taxing nanny state policies, which is opposite of Giuliani.

4:41 PM, November 20, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Then Chocolate Chip it is!

You are right, at this point it seems a long shot for Huckabee to get the nomination even with an Iowa win.
There are two possibilities that could make it happen.
1. According to Dick Morris, a surprise Iowa win would be worth $30 million in free publicity. That would go a long way toward evening up the ad/cash deficiency he has.

2. An Iowa win will also make the current polls in virtually all of the next states meaningless. They will shift dramatically overnight. I keep thinking of John Kerry.... At this point in the game last time he was mortgaging his wife's art collections for much needed cash & running third & fourth in the polls.

9:14 PM, November 20, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


I have answered your question about RP and the fringe groups before, but maybe I did not do it well enough. Here is Andy Sullivan's attempt by using a specific issue.....

"Ron Paul supports dismantling the Fed (in theory) because he believes fiat currency is bad monetary policy, and inflationary central banking is destructive to the long term sustainability of the middle class and economic prosperity. White supremacists want to dismantle the Fed because they believe international banking institutions are controlled by a secretive cabal of Zionist Jews who want to control the world, and being anti-Semitic, they think this is a terrible development. A rational mind can clearly see why Ron Paul would garner the support of white supremacists and neo-Nazis for reasons wholly unrelated to what Ron Paul actually stands for. It is a simple case of conspiracy-minded “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. This holds true for virtually any “fringe” group expressing discomforting support for Ron Paul (9/11 Truthers, neo-Confederates etc) the common ground all of these disparate groups, along with a great many “normal” Americans, share with Ron Paul is “Anti-Establishmentarianism”. The Establishmentarians don’t know what to make of this abrupt groundswell, and so they predictably lash out with smears designed to keep Ron Paul and his ideas/philosophy at the margins of the national discourse."

4:50 AM, November 21, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...

I understand Paul can't control who his supporter are. But what he can do when made aware, is keep White Supremacists web sites from raising money for his campaign by linking to his fundraising site.

I also know politicians don't like giving back contributions. But when its given by known KKK members don't you think that would be a good idea?


Huckabee will probably be the VP candidate. If Romney or Giuliani win the nomination they will probably be looking for a southern Governor as their running mate, and the Huckster, I believe, will be that guy.

5:43 AM, November 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.

...Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors
[all of which are individual donations, as I understand it, not PAC money]. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money.
Jesse Benton
Communications Director, Ron Paul 2008

8:45 AM, November 21, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

How can Ron Paul control who puts up a link to his web site? Why should he even try? His deal is personal freedom.

4:31 PM, November 21, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...


Pauls deal is personal freedom. I read the good Dr. is for the legalization of drugs. Do you know if this is true?

4:13 AM, November 23, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

He feels it is a state matter, not a federal one (except for that smuggled in from other countries). He also feels that the drug "war", like other wars, have been used to expand government power over individual rights to a degree not permitted by the constitution. For example, he would end the practice of DEA agents confiscating all the cash and property of someone accused of dealing drugs before the trial. The way it is now, they take all of your stuff, including the money you need to hire a good lawyer, and then if you are later found innocent you can begin the process to hopefully get it back.

5:40 AM, November 23, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...


Paul is for states having the option of legalizing drugs if they wish. He also says he is against abortion. Would he support an amendment that ban abortion nationwide or is that a states rights issue also?
If he is consistant, abortion then is a state issue. And if thats his belief he is exactly where Giuliani is on that issue. Agree?

6:11 AM, November 23, 2007  
Anonymous dave said...

Dr. Paul (an OB/GYN) has never supported abortion, whereas Giuliani has consistently supported 'a woman's right to choose [death].' But now that he is running for president, Giuliani- along with Fred- are hiding behind the skirts of their own twisted brands of federalism.

See for yourself...
Dr. Paul on Roe v. Wade:
"It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government."

Rudy on Roe v. Wade:
“Strict constructionists can look at it and say, it has been the law for this period of time, therefore we can respect the precedent.”

Article on Rudy and abortion by Tony Perkins

12:08 PM, November 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


We both know there is nothing a President can do to stop abortion except nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court. Giuliani has said he would nominate the likes of Scalia, Alita, & Roberts. He has a good judical committee with Ted Olson and Steve Forbes who are both pro life. This past week he crossed a huge hurdle with his speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyer group. You can read at

Tony Perkins? I stopped listening to these so called leaders of the Christian Conservative movement several years ago. They have become nothing more than prostitutes to the political process.

7:21 PM, November 23, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

There IS something that can be done besides appointing judges you HOPE will rule correctly and then waiting for the right precedent to wind its way through the courts.

Ron Paul has already done it. He introduced legislation that states abortion is outside the purview of federal judges. This would de-facto overturn Roe overnight. Paul has already sponsored the legislation, he just needs to be put in a position where it can pass.

There is no doubt that Paul is seriously committed to ending abortion, and also no doubt that Rudy is not. Even if you think abortion is murder, murder laws are handled on the state level.

9:56 PM, November 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, did you even read the Perkins article? You can attack him if you want, you can slander all Christian leaders in one breath if that's your bag, but you Rudy hacks can't deny facts: Rudy doesn't care about abortion, except to keep it legal.

7:05 AM, November 24, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...


I made the last post. Guess I forgot to type in my name.

It is not my intent to slander Christian leaders. What we are seeing since the death of Jerry Falwell is a fight to see who is going to be the leader of the Christian Conservative movement. My observation is when these people are so concerned about power then they can't be trusted.
I am very familar with Tony Perkins, Richard Land, James Dobson and others. But since the age of Baker and Swaggart I am less trusting of someone I don't know personally.

Jerry Falwell started a great movement in the 80's but even he got to wraped up in politics. As a preacher called of God, don't you think his primary objective was to reach people for the cause of Christ?

4:57 AM, November 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it was, and I think it was, indeed. Do a little research into Jerry Falwell's work, and you will see that politics played only a minor component. The man can't be blamed that the media was only interested in advertising his political endeavors.

Also, as skeptical as I am about some of the political advice coming from Christian leaders, I don't believe that most of them are competing for Falwell's 'position.'
I think that requires a little too much assigning of motive. Though I suspect there's one or two who wouldn't mind more limelight, I think most of them are well intentioned, however often I might disagree with them politically. In fact, I might name as one of few exceptions the one pulling for Giuliani, the same candidate you're backing. Seems like, by your reasoning, Rudy would be the candidate least likely to earn your support. I suppose it's just a matter of whose political message you agree with?

If I were you, I'd stay away from criticizing Christian leaders. Even as a Ron Paul supporter (who finds fewer endorsements from Christian leaders than even Giuliani) I avoid bad mouthing Christian leaders on blogs viewable to the whole world. It's not worth earning His wrath in exchange for some cheap political points for the candidate of the day.

6:16 AM, November 25, 2007  
Anonymous Rick said...


Again, I don't want to come across as bad mouthing Christian Leaders, I am just not one who follows blindly and I do believe there is a power struggle with most of these leaders.

As far as me supporting Rudy, he is the least likely candidate I would support. In fact I have never supported anyone who was pro choice in my life and I have been voting since 1980, but I don't see anyone who is any better, and that includes Paul. Who knows, maybe I will write in Marks name.

9:40 AM, November 25, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home