Ron Paul 2008 Lets Trade, Not Invade!

Joe Biden is the best man for the job. He has won every debate that has been held and he is by far the most experienced. Oh, and he's HONEST. Imagine that.

What ARE they thinking in Iowa these days???

Your logic is fallid.

The practice is not unique to Romney, it is the traditional way of doing it. Not all voters have the money to participate on their own.

There will be plenty of Romney supporters who get there on their own power.

You'll have a hard time converting anyone to Ron Paul. It's not that he doesn't have some good ideas, it's that he doesn't have the leadership and fortitude to encourage the masses in those ideas.

The predominant reason Ron Paul supporters are paying their own way is because Ron Paul can't raise enough money, it isn't a choice. If he had the funds and Ron Paul supporters chose to pay their own way, that would be a statement. Quite frankly, there is no money and there is no great statement made.

Look up the government website. Condaleeza Rics is on there. It is very informative.

On another aspect, Romney bought thousands of voters tickets and a free meal. How is this ethical in any way?

Watch how many Ron Paul supporters will show up and vote, paying for the tickets because of thier belief in his campaign, not being bought off.

Contrariwise, Obama and Edwards would give her no states - just a lot of near-misses down south.

An Internet poll is more accurate then a 600 person poll by phone.

And Dems are staying away from a Faux News debate because they should- Fox is not a legitimate news network, it is a partisan mouthpiece. It should not be legitimized by the Democrats.

"Mitt Romeny is great! I can’t wait until we have multiple first ladies!"

Mitt is the only one who hasn't had multiple first ladies. He's been faithfully married for 38 years.

Paul has visited Iowa, and his independent meeting(which he set up after the official event in the same building) garnered more supporters than all other candidates combined. Funny thing, the official Republican was done under the premise of Christians and Tax Relief, both views strongly supported by Ron Paul.

Check your facts first.

Your statement contradicts the whole Ron Paul, "the NAU is the end of civil liberties" argument.

If the NAU spells the end of civil liberties in the United States to the point that everyone should be afraid of it why wouldn't Canada feel the same way? Canada is a much more liberal country than the United States. Civil liberties in Canada are afforded to citizens with much more regard than they are in the United States.

No one is saying Canada hates the United States. The economic relationship between the two nations is one of the closest in the world. The majority of the oil consumed in the United States comes from Canada. In this light the NAU is a footnote. There is already an undeniable economic union between the two countries, and has been for a very long time.

When you get away from economics the difference become much more evident. Canada opposed the war in Iraq and sent no troops as part of the coalition. Canada expressed its liberal views of personal freedom when it lead in the creation of the International Criminal Court for war crimes, which the United States opposed.

There are fundamental and idealistic differences between the neighbor nations that would prove very difficult to simply wipe away with a NAU type system. I agree with you regarding the concern owed to something as sweeping as the NAU but the knee-jerk "the sky is falling" reaction to the NAU, which doesn't even exist, does make the Ron Paul supports come across as radical.

The more extreme you are, the more you make your voice heard. Thus, people who are passionate about the 9/11 conspiracy are going to post about it a lot more. Though I don't like to judge these people (I think some bring up interesting points), they can be offputting. Look at Dr. Paul on his own merits, not the ramblings of a few of his supporters.

The NAU is going to be the end of U.S. liberties? Lest we forget that Canada would be part of the NAU and they don’t even like us all that much. You actually think Canada is going to agree to something like that?

I really don't know the status of the NAU right now, but I think it's irresponsible to say we shouldn't worry about it because you think Canada would not agree to it. I've yet to hear of great Canadian disgust with the US, and even if there is, if they could see economic growth from joining the NAU, I don't know why they would refuse.

And for others interested in Paul, you might like to know that the University of Nevada considers him to be a top-tier candidate. He and the big three are the only four candidates to be invited to a political forum in August, in an early primary state.

I am certainly not trying to be arrogant. This was an observation and opinion based on the poor grammar, mis-spellings, mis-statement of facts, lack of understanding of the issues and the parroting of the media analysis and candidates talking points.

I was not suggesting that intelligent people cannot support a "top tier" candidate in good conscience and with good reason. Just seems like we get the annointed candidates pushed down our throats and they are mostly out of the same partisan mold as those that have preceded them.

Edwards has a lot going for him but it is more likely he will be tapped as a vice-president again. The jaggernaught that is the Clinton Machine will steamroll over him in the primaries. This will probably be the democrat's undoing however.

I would probably pay more attention to Ron Paul's views if his supporters didn't come across as tinfoil hat wearing fanatics. 9-11 was an inside job? That would mean Bush can actually think his way out of a paper bag. The NAU is going to be the end of U.S. liberties? Lest we forget that Canada would be part of the NAU and they don't even like us all that much. You actually think Canada is going to agree to something like that? You better get more tinfoil for your hat if you believe such a thing.

The only candidate I feel even the slight confort with as a president is Fred Thompson at this point. He has his flaws but they're much smaller and easier to deal with than the rest of the candidates. He acknowleges the rights of the unborn. He has conservative republican values. And he's a straight shooter who speaks his mind. I even like his wife. She refuses to conform to some anal-retentive stereotype of what the president's wife should be. I personally applaud that.

Here is a fresh perspective as to why the leaders are leading in Iowa. On the Democratic side, John Edwards finished a very strong 3rd in the Caucus for the 2004 Election. Before bowing out, he was well liked in Iowa. Its obvious he still is, because he tells it like it is. He doesnt talk in soundbites. He has a vision. Maybe you dont agree with his politics per se, but his positive message is why we like him here.

While Iowans are a "bottom-line" and "to-the-point" people, we also have a thing for showing support to candidates who come to our state and take the time out to talk to us and get our perspectives, hear our stories, and more. Mitt, for better or for worse, leads in the polls because he has taken the time out to visit the state. Sincere interest or politics as usual? You be the judge, but Iowans pay attention to those who come to our convention centers, town halls, community centers, VFW's, and other venues.

Will these polls change much over time. I suspect they will. As the race draws closer, the spread between all of the candidates will decrease. Also, we may even see a few lead changes. It will be an exciting time for everyone. Its a real charge to see Iowa be the early pulse of a candidates viability.

I think its a bit arrogant to suggest that the uninformed gravitate toward the top candidates, and not sound to use the ticker as any sort of indicator.

People might be attracted to Obamas health care pledges, or Clinton's Foreign Policy experience, or Guliani's handling of 9/11 and cleaning up NYC, or Romneys management of MA, or even McCain's record of making decisions on his own accord versus the parties (until recently)

You do not give people enough credit. You just seem frustrated that the Candidates with something interesting and different to say wont make it through the primaries.

Susan Espenschied
Publisher Of Aliso Laguna News
An Independent Community Newspaper

You want more of the same? Settle for Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, F. Thompson. Want a different approach? Look at someone else (Biden, Huckabee, Paul?).

I believe the Republicans get a whack at the Youtube debate in September.

CNN is very slanted in its objectivity and coverage of politicians and if I were a Republican candidate, I wouldn't want to go to a debate they sponsored either. Their agenda is suspicious.

Please don't suggest that CNN – Youtube is the ONLY way to be around real people with ad lib questions!!! Candidates are holding Townhall meetings constantly where they are face to face with real people, with tough questions. As if CNN/Youtube was the end-all??!!