Nov. 7, 2007

Among Democratic Voters, No Gender Gap

CBS' Kathy Frankovic: Hillary Clinton Getting Support From Both Men and Women

  • Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) addresses an AFSCME meeting October 31, 2007 in Washington, DC. Photo

    Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) addresses an AFSCME meeting October 31, 2007 in Washington, DC.  (Getty Images/Win McNamee)

  • Podcast Poll Positions

    Listen to CBS News director of surveys Kathy Frankovic dissect the data to see what's driving public opinion.

  • Photo Essay Hillary Clinton

    A look at a life and career full of firsts.


  • Faith's Complex Role
  • How will religion affect the 2008 presidential campaign? CBS News Director of Surveys Kathleen Frankovic tells you what the polls say.

(CBS)  By Kathy Frankovic, CBS News director of surveys

The gender gap - the difference in how women and men vote in an election and react to political questions - doesn’t seem to matter much this year in the Democratic presidential selection process. Among Democratic primary voters in the October CBS News Poll, men were just as likely as women to support Hillary Clinton for the nomination (just over 50 percent in both cases), and Democratic men and women expressed generally similar views of her. More than seven in ten male and female Democratic primary voters viewed Clinton favorably, two-thirds said she would unite the country if elected, and very few - only about 5 percent of each sex - agreed with one perceived Clinton weakness: that she has less honesty and integrity than others in public life.

There are still gender differences when we look beyond Democratic partisans. Independent women were 12 points more likely than independent men to have a favorable opinion of Clinton. And they were 11 points more likely to withhold any judgment about whether or not they would vote for her if she were the Democratic nominee. While a plurality of men independents saw Clinton as someone who would divide the country, the reverse was true of women independents: women were more likely to see her as someone who would bring people together.

We don’t often evaluate women at the national level - except for First Ladies. And it’s important to recognize that in these polarized times, partisanship nearly always takes precedence over gender. In a CBS News Poll taken last February, men and women Republicans gave similar evaluations of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. So did men and women Democrats. Republicans (both men and women) were ten times as likely to give Rice a favorable as an unfavorable rating, while Democrats (men and women) were twice as likely to dislike her as to like her. Once again, it was independents who showed any gender difference at all: although male and female independents gave Rice a positive rating, the margin for men was much larger (two to one) than the very narrow positive rating she received from women.

Gender differences in assessment of Rice are clearly mediated by feelings about U.S. foreign policy, especially in reactions to the war in Iraq. The sexes have almost always differed when it comes to opinion about specific wars and about the strategy of war in general.

This is not new. In 1920, the Democratic National Committee expected newly enfranchised women to take the Democrats’ side in the election. One reason why was war and peace, especially Woodrow Wilson’s support for the League of Nations. In an ad in the November 1920 McCall’s Magazine, the Democratic National Committee headlined: “Women Voters! The Future of a War-Worn World Is Yours to Decide.” And the party’s candidate (who would lose to Republican Warren G. Harding) greeted women’s suffrage by saying: “The civilization of the world is saved. The mothers of America will stay the hand of war….”

In 1980, pollsters first noticed the gender gap. Men gave Ronald Reagan a 20-point margin over Jimmy Carter in that election, while women voters divided evenly. This gender gap continued in the sexes’ approval ratings for President Reagan throughout his two terms in office, and it seemed to be explained best by the differences in how men and women looked at Reagan on foreign policy. Women were more likely than men to say they worried that Reagan “might get us into a war.”

This kind of gender gap shows up in many questions about war and peace - on questions about U.S. military incursion into places like Panama in 1990, and on whether or not the U.S. should invade Iraq in 2003. Women are consistently less likely to support military action. The gender gap exists today, even with controls for party identification, when Americans are asked how long U.S. troops should remain in Iraq. In the last CBS News Poll, a majority of all women (52 percent) said U.S. troops should not remain in Iraq for more than one more year. That sentiment is shared by only 38 percent of all men. Gender differences exist for both Republicans and Democrats. A third of women Republicans want U.S. troops out of Iraq after a year, while only 15 percent of Republican men do. Among Democrats, half of the men want U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for one more year or less, and nearly two-thirds of women do.

Many women also have a different view from men about what works best when it comes to keeping the U.S. safe from terrorism. By a margin of 55 percent to 41 percent, men say it is better to confront groups and states that support terrorism, while by 49 percent to 39 percent, women say it is better to stay out of other countries’ affairs.

Clinton doesn’t fit the pacifistic female stereotype (and neither does Rice). But so far that hasn’t hurt the Democratic frontrunner with women, and may very well be helping her secure the support of men.

By Kathy Frankovic
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Candidate Profiles & RSS Feeds


Add a Comment See all 30 Comments
by guysdigdirt November 7, 2007 12:38 PM PST
Which all goes to prove neither age nor *** can prevent one from being fooled and stupid.

What credible reason is there to vote for another clinton
Reply to this comment
by taxguydave November 7, 2007 2:45 PM PST
Hillary isn''t Bill. Nevertheless, under another Clinton, we might balance the budget again and once more start paying down the national debt, which Bush and the Republican-controlled congress nearly doubled.

The national debt is the biggest issue that we will face over the next decade or so. The dollar is falling fast, and that alone will put oil over $150 a barrel in a few months.
Reply to this comment
by likeitis5050 November 7, 2007 7:10 PM PST
When they stop throwing soft balls to this hypocrite, only then will we see Hillary for what she is...two-faced, wishy-washy, and a total sell-out to the very group she is desperately trying to exploit...women. This woman is not only not ASKED these questions, she has yet to answer these questions; why did you stay with a man who was accused by so many women of se..xual harrassment and assault? why did you participate in helping your predator husband prey on so many women by not leaving? do you believe all the women who came forward accusing your husband of the same agressive behavior to be liars? we proved him to be a liar twice, so how could you stay with him knowing there were so many other women out there who could not withstand the onslaught of publicity and Clinton intimidation tactics. how can you now claim to be a champion for women?

Ask her and then decide if she has the integrity and ethics to be president or even ''uniquely qualified'' to run!
Reply to this comment
by quatrops November 7, 2007 8:26 PM PST
It isn''t quite clear who guysdigdirt is talking about when he says "being fooled and stupid" . . . unless it''s the American people who, in 2004, bought in to the fear mongering and reelected an incompetent as president and a fascist-in-neocon-clothing as VP.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 7, 2007 11:18 PM PST
All of these free trade deals and world governmental organizations that all of the presidential candidates support (except Ron Paul), such as the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA, are all major threat to our nation''s sovereignty. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor''s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws to meet their needs, and not our own. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. NAFTA''s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union, which would create a single nation State out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. And forget about controlling immigration under this NAU scheme. There won''t be any borders, and a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever. Let''s not forget the UN either. It wants to impose a direct Carbon Tax on us. Ron Paul successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to rule over us, we need someone who knows how to say "No." We must withdraw from any organizations or trade deals that infringes upon the sovereignty of the U.S. Vote America First. Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 7, 2007 11:25 PM PST
What we need is a President who will show us the way. Not the old way. Not the same way, but a NEW WAY. Think about this for a minute. What if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea? They''ve been there for 50+ years. What if we quit worrying about Iran, but instead, realized that its having a nuclear weapon will not mean the end of the world? What if we pulled all of our troops out of the Middle-East, and brought them all home? What if we realistically addressed the National Debt, and paid attention to REALLY DOING SOMETHING about stopping illegal immigration? These are the ideas of Republican Presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul. He''s a ten term Congressman and a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. He''s an intellectual who''s published four books, three of which are devoted entirely to sound economics and one to foreign policy. He was raised on a dairy farm in Pennsylvania as a pious Lutheran, but now he attends a Baptist church. Paul is given to mulling things over morally. Whenever he recollects the helicopter pilots he treated as an Air Force Flight Surgeon (Captain) during the Vietnam War, a war which he now says was "totally unnecessary and illegal," he laments, "They were gung-ho. I''ve often thought about how many of those people never came back." Candidates with the high level of personal integrity and proven track record of adherance to The Constitution, Congressman Paul has always demonstrated only come around once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 2:07 AM PST
Sadly, even though Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, and a host of Laws aimed at removing your liberties, so many Democrats are blinded by her cult of personality that I predict they will overwhelmingly vote to put her crime family back into office. While I''ve made some progress in educating Liberals as to the phony staged consensus of the left-right paradigm, the fact remains that a majority of Democrats still see the White House as some kind of political Super Bowl, where the success of their "team" is the be all and end all - to the expense of America as a whole. The Punch and Judy show theatre that was the "troop surge" debate in the Senate characterizes Hillary''s role in hoodwinking Americans perfectly. The debate is framed as not whether the U.S. should get out of the Middle-East altogether, but the relative minutia of whether to feed thousands of more troops into the meat grinder or not. Clinton''s Campaign Manager recently compared Hillary to Margaret Thatcher, which translates as more war, more dead Americans, and a further desecration of the tattered shreds of what''s left of our Constitution. Clinton is the ultimate global elitist and represents the Democrats supposed base, the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay Lohan represents grace and dignity. I''m sure she informed the likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix as to her presidential aspirations during her last visit to attend the Bilderberg conference. Vote for a REAL AMERICAN. Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 2:08 AM PST
With the full support of Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, President Bush recently signed into Law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which, according to Senator Leahy, will actually "encourage the President to declare Martial Law." It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of Laws that limits the President''s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic Law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush has now undone those prohibitions. Public Law 109-364, or the John Warner Defense Authorization Act (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the President in a private ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency," suspend Congress and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of your Governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act. In a sense, the two Laws compliment one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad of those who dissent and are stripped of their citizenship, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. STOP THIS MADNESS! Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:16 AM PST
They Don''t call him "Doctor No" for no reason. Congressman, Paul never votes for any Bill which he feels is not authorized by The Constitution, regardless of what it is named. Ron Paul "is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues," says Barney Frank, who has worked with Paul on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. "He is independent, but not ornery." Paul has made a habit of objecting to things that no one else objects to. In October 2001, he was one of only three House Republicans to vote against the USA Patriot Act. He was the sole House member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (412-1). In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks. Paul also voted against similar medals for Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He did offer $100 of his own money, though, to help pay for Reagan''s medal, and invited others in Congress to match his offer, but not one Member took him-up on it. Instead, Congress spent YOUR money. He not only routinely opposes resolutions that are unconstitutional, he votes against Bills which presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Mugabe''s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1).
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:18 AM PST
To those who don''t vote: Voter disenfranchisement and apathy infects the heart of our Republic. Get off your couch, put your remote control down, and become active in your nation''s political process. The pathetically few people that do vote in this country, a.k.a., "the ruling class", who currently get to decide under what kind of conditions (and Laws) you and your family will live, are certainly involved. I can assure you of that. In fact, the ruling class would be much happier if you would just continue to stay home and watch TV in your pleasantly distracted and brainwashed, stupor. That way they can continue to elect their political ****** to office, and continue to maintain their grip on 100% of the political power they currently own in this country. If you voted (God Forbid), it would cancel-out their vote, and they would lose control. They can''t have that. Can they? If you don''t vote, my friends, you''re nothing but an unwashed "Pleb" to those that do, and the ruling class should rightfully consider themselves superior to you in every way. They do, after all, have all the power, while you have none. If you''re too apathetic and powerless to do anything for yourself more time-consuming than driving down to Mickey D''s to buy a milk shake in order to sieze control of your life, and your country''s destiny, then perhaps you deserve to be ruled over like the "Pleb" that you then are. The time to act is now. The time for political revolution has come. The time for Ron Paul is NOW!
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:19 AM PST
Ron Paul''s message is not new. You could have heard it in 1964 or 1975 or 1991 at the conclaves of those conservatives who were considered outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. Back then, most Republicans appeared reconciled to a strong federal government, if only to do the expensive job of defending the country against Communism. But when the Berlin Wall fell, the dormant institutions and ideologies of pre-cold-war conservatism began to stir. In his 1992 and 1996 campaigns, Pat Buchanan, who calls Ron Paul one of the Republicans he "most admires," was the first politician to express and exploit this change, breathing life into the motto America First (if not the organization of that name, which opposed entry into World War II). Like Buchanan, Paul draws on forgotten traditions. His top aides are unimpeachably Republican but stand at a distance from the party as it has evolved over the decades. His chief of staff, Tom Lizardo, worked for Pat Robertson and Bill Miller Jr. is the son of Barry Goldwater''s vice-presidential nominee. His national campaign organizer, Lew Moore, worked for the late Congressman Jack Metcalf of Washington State, another Goldwaterite. At the grass roots, Paul''s New Hampshire primary campaign stresses gun rights and relies on anti-abortion and tax activists from the organizations of Buchanan and the state''s former Senator, Bob Smith.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:21 AM PST
Ron Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. It''s ironic that other GOP candidates are scared to death of his message, BECAUSE his is more conservative than theirs. Being anti-war IS CONSERVATIVE. Another key difference between his message and the others is that he is a strong defender of The Constitution, which protects our civil liberties. The other Presidential candidates, who are mostly NWO Oligarchs, want to erase your liberties. They''ve tried hard to exlude Paul from the spotlight, along with the sold-out, mainstream media. In late June, despite a life of antitax agitation and pious churchgoing, he was excluded from a Republican forum sponsored by Iowa anti-tax and Christian groups. Ron Paul does not represent your Father''s school of political thought. He represents your Founding Fathers. He stands for a certain idea of The Constitution; the idea that much of the power asserted by modern presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the States. Though Dr. Paul acknowledges flaws in both The Constitution (it included slavery) and its Bill of Rights (it doesn''t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn therefrom: against gun control; for the sovereignty of States; and against foreign-policy adventures. His message draws on the noblest traditions of American decency and patriotism.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:22 AM PST
Some people say, "a Republican? I''d never vote for a Republican." Let me remind you folks that Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, and who won the war to preserve our Union, WAS himself a Republican. Would you have voted for Stephen Douglas, who was ardently pro slavery, against Lincoln simply because he was a Democrat? Of course you wouldn''t. It''s the person your voting for, and the ideas he or she represents, NOT the party. Ron Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. The Republican party has "lost its way," he said recently, during a GOP debate. Like the limited federal government principles espoused by Dwight D. Eisenhower, his school of Republicanism stands for a certain idea of The Constitution that much of the power asserted by modern Presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the States. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both The Constitution (it included slavery) and the Bill of Rights (it doesn''t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn therefrom: against gun control; for the sovereignty of States; and against foreign-policy adventures like the ones currently being played-out in the Mid-East. After ten terms of service as a U.S. Congressman, Ron Paul has demonstrated a consistent track record of adherance to The Constitution unmatched by anyone in either party.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:24 AM PST
I agree with Dr. Paul on the Social Security issue. Our nation''s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits to pay for militarization. Today, the Social Security system is both broke and broken. Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible military spending. The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals. Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, Dr. Paul introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors'' income and raise their standard of living. Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and he introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is ONLY used for Social Security. Also, it is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190), which Ron Paul supported, ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor. We must also address the widespread desire of younger workers to save for retirement on their own.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:26 AM PST
Things people should know about Rudolph Giuliani: A Spanish company, Cintra-Zachry, which is owned by the King of Spain, is already building the North American SuperCorridor highway through the middle of our country thanks to NAFTA, and they''re going to get the tolls. Rodolph Giuliani''s Law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani represents that Spanish company. Another Giuliani business, Giuliani Capitol Advisors was once a partner of Cintra-Zachry, and actually owned the rights to collect tolls from the Indiana and Chicago sections of the SuperCorridor before Giuliani sold that interest recently to an Australian company called Macquarie. Bracewell & Giuliani represents some of the biggest multi-national oil, utility infrastructure and financial corporations both in the U.S. and abroad. With that have come the connections that Giuliani has been able to tap into for campaign donations, essential for his Presidential bid, not only in Texas but nationwide, as he has become the consumate NWO globalist. Particularly unnerving, given Giuliani''s personal experience on 9/11, is his defense of open borders at any cost while condoning the NAFTA Superhighway Corridor and by extension the North American Union, without the consent of the U.S. Congress or the will of the American people. We should have seen it coming when Mayor Giuliani enacted Special Order 40 in 1994, ordering NYC cops to stop checking the immigration status of suspects caught violating the Law. Vote for a REAL AMERICAN--Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:28 AM PST
All of these trade deals and world governmental organizations that all of the presidential candidates support (except Ron Paul), such as the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA, are all major threat to our nation''s sovereignty. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a prescription to take herbs and vitamins. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws to meet their needs, and not our own. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. The NAFTA superhighway, which is currently being built, is just one part of a plan to erase our borders and create the North American Union, a single nation State like the EU, out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new, unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under the NAU scheme. There won''t be any borders anymore, or a free America. Our limited, constitutional government, will be gone forever. Let''s not forget the UN either. It wants to impose a direct Carbon Tax on us. Ron Paul successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to rule over us, we need someone in the White House who knows how to say "No." We must withdraw from any organizations or treaty that infringes upon our nation''s sovereignty. Vote AMERICA FIRST! Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:30 AM PST
Noticed prices are higher lately? So have I. Inflation, which increases the price of everything you buy, be it a dozen eggs at the store, or the price you pay for gas at the pump, is caused when The Federal Reserve, a group of private banks run by unelected officials, who are not accountable to we the people, lowers the interest rate, notwithstanding the fact that the Dollar has been undergoing a major devaluation overseas, rather than increasing the interest rate like it should have done. That''s Economics 101, folks. Everything costs more in U.S. Dollars, because the Dollar is worth less. Because the Fed is allowed to print unbacked money out of thin air, and then loan it to the our government, which is then saddled with an interest obligation to pay it back, our money is becoming worth less and less each day, and our National debt to the Fed is approaching 10 trillion dollars. It gets worse. Most of our debt is owned by China (25%) and Saudi Arabia who buy our Treasury Bonds, which finances our runaway military spending overseas. This is a threat to our nation, folks. We need to stop this madness. We need to bring our troops home from overseas, and use the trillions we would then save thereby to reduce our debt, and to re-invigorate our currency. We can then use this money to ensure that Social Security and other essential programs will still be solvent in ten years. Vote for Ron Paul. He''s written entire books on the topic of sound economics. ronpaullibrary.org
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:32 AM PST
Ron Paul can win the GOP nomination. If he does, I predict a landslide victory in November of 2008. Even the oddsmakers in Vegas aren''t willing to discount his chances. They''re currently giving him 3:1 odds to win against Hitlery if he gets the nomination. Romney, McCain and the globalist, sell-out Giuliani aren''t given anything better than a 35:1 chance of winning if they get the GOP nod. All it takes is for formerly apathetic individuals to get off the couch and nominate him in their local Republican primary or caucus process. Political parties are nothing more than tools. Those who read the manual and use the tools properly will win the nomination for their candidate. For the past 20 years, many good people have stayed at home and accepted whatever candidate they let others select for them. This year, those people are learning how to use their vote to bring about positive and long overdue political change in this country. To make a difference, you must participate in the Republican primary election or caucus process in your county, precinct or district. Nothing else matters. If we do this, we win. If not, we lose. The GOP has been suffering from declining participation for decades. Fewer than 10% of registered voters have ALL the power because they actually participate. Now the remaining 90% must surge to use their vote as a tool for bringing about positive change to our country. The time to act is now. The time for political revolution has come. The time for Ron Paul is NOW!
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:33 AM PST
Dr. Ron Paul., an OB/GYN physician, has been the national leader in preserving our Health Freedom. He feels that Americans are justifiably concerned over the government''s escalating intervention into their freedom to choose what they eat and how they take care of their health. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN''s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs. He introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies. He supports the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments. He opposes legislation that increases the FDA''s legal powers. The FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements. He also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:35 AM PST
Most intelligent people can see right through the mainstream media''s bias against Ron Paul. "What about the polls?", you ask. As someone who''s been in the business, I know you can make a poll result look anyway you want. All you have to do is call or not call on people in a certain demographic group to achieve your desired result. You can see the man has support. He''s won ALL of the viewer call-in polls in ALL of the GOP debates he''s been in. People everywhere are in the street, and on the Net, supporting him like no other. And his campaign chest is growing daily, and not from huge corporate donations like the other GOP and Democratic party candidates get from defense contractors and bankers, but from grass root supporters who give what little they can afford--$5, $10, whatever. This is a 21st Century political revolution, my friends, and the Oligarchs or on the defensive. Ignore what the media network giants like CBS tell you. They sold-out to the status quo decades ago. This man has some major grass roots support across this country. Millions of Americans believe he is our only hope to restore peace, prosperity and freedom in this country. Presidential candidates with the personal integrity and proven track record of adherance to The Constitution Congressman, Paul has always demonstrated only come around only once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky. The stakes are too high. The cause of freedom is too important. Get off your couch, put the remote down and support Ron Paul!
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:36 AM PST
In Congress, Ron Paul is not only known for his lack of ego (a rare quality in Washington), he''s widely admired for his resistance to the influence of special interest groups. Again. They don''t call him "Dr. No" for no reason. He consistanly votes against pork-barrel spending. In a rice-growing, cattle-ranching district, Dr. Paul consistently votes against farm subsidies. In the very district where, on the night of Sept. 8, 1900, a storm destroyed the city of Galveston, and where repairs from Hurricane Rita and refugees from Hurricane Katrina continue to exact their toll, he votes against FEMA and flood aid. In a district that is home to thousands of employees of the Johnson Space Center, he votes against financing NASA. Nothwithstanding this, his constituants in the 14th District of Texas continue to re-relect him. Why? You ask? I think one voter I talked to there summarized it nicely when she said, "We may not like his vote. But we trust his heart." Ron Paul is a man with Presidential-like constitutional integrity and frugal spending principles, which I fully support. That''s why he has my vote.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:37 AM PST
They Don''t call him "Doctor No" for no reason. Congressman, Paul never votes for any Bill which he feels is not authorized by The Constitution, regardless of what it is named. Ron Paul "is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues," says Barney Frank, who has worked with Paul on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. "He is independent, but not ornery." Paul has made a habit of objecting to things that no one else objects to. In October 2001, he was one of only three House Republicans to vote against the USA Patriot Act. He was the sole House member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (412-1). In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks. Paul also voted against similar medals for Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He did offer $100 of his own money, though, to help pay for Reagan''s medal, and invited others in Congress to match his offer, but not one Member took him-up on it. Instead, Congress spent YOUR money. He not only routinely opposes resolutions that are unconstitutional, he votes against Bills which presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Mugabe''s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1).
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:38 AM PST
I agree with Ron Paul about the issue of illegal immigration. The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. Ron Paul has a plan: (1.) Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. (2.) Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. Law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. (3.) No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That''s a lot of people to reward for breaking our Laws. (4.) No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules, but taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. (5.) End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. (6.) Pass true immigration reform. The current system, and those proposed by ALL other candidates, is incoherent and unfair, and would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country. Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:43 AM PST
Ron Paul does not support secret offshore prisons like the one in Guantanamo, wherein our government tortures prisoners, who have no right to redress of grievance, or to Writ of Habeus Corpus. Ron Paul promises he will close these "illegal prisons" down. He wouldn''t necessarily just release the prisoners either. He said he would simply bring them to detainment facilities on U.S. soil where they would be entitled to an attorney, and to their day in Court--"American Justice." Significant others agree with Paul. "Essentially, we have shaken the belief that the world had in America''s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like a military commission," former U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell recently said.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:44 AM PST
I support Ron Paul and his non-interventionist foreign policy. All of the other candidates wants to continue our illegal police action in Iraq indefinitely, and they do not rule out a preemptive (nuclear) first strike against Iran. Ron Paul voted against our (undeclared) war in Iraq, which was sold to us with lies. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies--the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. The war in Iraq has cost more than 3,500 American lives and almost a trillion dollars. We need a leader in the White House who will ensure this never happens again. Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have 750 foreign bases and troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing our borders against illegal aliens who are invading our country from the South. No war should ever be fought without a Declaration of War voted upon by the Congress, as required by The Constitution. Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Too often, we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we too become despised.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:45 AM PST
What we need is a President who will show us the way. Not the old way. Not the same way, but a NEW WAY. Think about this for a minute. What if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea? They''ve been there for 50+ years. What if we quit worrying about Iran, but instead, realized that its having a nuclear weapon will not mean the end of the world? What if we pulled all of our troops out of the Middle-East, and brought them all home? What if we realistically addressed the National Debt, and paid attention to REALLY DOING SOMETHING about stopping illegal immigration? These are the ideas of Republican Presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul. He''s a ten term Congressman and a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. He''s an intellectual who''s published four books, three of which are devoted entirely to sound economics and one to foreign policy. He was raised on a dairy farm in Pennsylvania as a pious Lutheran, but now he attends a Baptist church. Paul is given to mulling things over morally. Whenever he recollects the helicopter pilots he treated as an Air Force Flight Surgeon (Captain) during the Vietnam War, a war which he now says was "totally unnecessary and illegal," he laments, "They were gung-ho. I''ve often thought about how many of those people never came back." Candidates with the high level of personal integrity and proven track record of adherance to The Constitution, Congressman Paul has always demonstrated only come around once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:46 AM PST
Sadly, even though Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, and a host of Laws aimed at removing your liberties, so many Democrats are blinded by her cult of personality that I predict they will overwhelmingly vote to put her crime family back into office. While I''ve made some progress in educating Liberals as to the phony staged consensus of the left-right paradigm, the fact remains that a majority of Democrats still see the White House as some kind of political Super Bowl, where the success of their "team" is the be all and end all - to the expense of America as a whole. The Punch and Judy show theatre that was the "troop surge" debate in the Senate characterizes Hillary''s role in hoodwinking Americans perfectly. The debate is framed as not whether the U.S. should get out of the Middle-East altogether, but the relative minutia of whether to feed thousands of more troops into the meat grinder or not. Clinton''s Campaign Manager recently compared Hillary to Margaret Thatcher, which translates as more war, more dead Americans, and a further desecration of the tattered shreds of what''s left of our Constitution. Clinton is the ultimate global elitist and represents the Democrats supposed base, the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay Lohan represents grace and dignity. I''m sure she informed the likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix as to her presidential aspirations during her last visit to attend the Bilderberg conference. Vote for a REAL AMERICAN. Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:48 AM PST
My fellow Americans just don''t seem to care that our nation, along with The Constitution upon which it was founded, is being flushed-down the NWO toilet by our nations'' bought and paid for politicians and media. While the Oligarchs warn and insite fear in the sheeple about the prospect of terrorism, they at the same time leave our border wide open, and fund and conduct illegal wars overseas that do nothing but encite the terrorism which their Orwellian Laws like the Patriot Act and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act pretend to protect us from. Wake up America! It''s not about protecting you from terrorism, or saving the planet from Global Warming, or any of that other fear-mongering garbage the sold-out, mainstream media feeds you 24/7. It''s about feeding the bankers and the military industrial complex, and facilitating the global elite''s ability to ratchet-down control over the American people, placing us into a total control grid where they can surveille, track and control everywhere we go and everything we do. It''s the groundwork for totalitarianism. It''s the New World Order plan of Bush, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, et.al., being executed quite beautifully. You''re a frog in a pot. In order to cook a frog, you don''t throw him into a pot of boiling water. If you do, he''ll resist and jump-out. What you do instead is, you turn the heat-up REAL SLOW, and by the time the water is boiling he won''t be able to jump out anymore, because it''s too late--he''s already doomed.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:51 PM PST
With the full support of Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, President Bush recently signed into Law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which, according to Senator Leahy (VT), will actually "encourage the President to declare Martial Law." It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of Laws that limits the President''s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic Law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush has now undone those prohibitions. Public Law 109-364, or the John Warner Defense Authorization Act (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the President in a private ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency," suspend Congress and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of your Governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act. In a sense, the two Laws compliment one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad of those who dissent and are stripped of their citizenship, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. STOP THIS MADNESS! Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by topprophet November 8, 2007 4:52 PM PST
CLINTON HIRES CRIMINAL AND RECEIVES ILLEGAL MONEY
On Sept. 20, CBS News (quietly) reported that Hillary Clinton''s campaign fundraiser Norman Hsu was being charged in New York with running a ponzi scheme that also involves illegal campaign contributions to her presidential campaign. He was a leading money bundler for Clinton, and had actually earned the nickname, "HillRaiser" from Hillary for his efforts at collecting donations for her. Ultimately, her campaign was forced to return ($850,000) in donations that were linked to Hsu. Afterwards, Clinton promised, "stricter scrutiny of donors." Hsu was actually a wanted fugitive, with an outstanding Felony Warrant, the entire time he worked for Clinton. Hsu''s ponzi scheme involved getting people to invest in what appeared to be a lucrative financial investment while at the same time getting those individuals to donate money to Hillary Clinton''s presidential campaign. Hsu was wanted in California on charges stemming from a 15-year-old Felony Theft conviction. Shouldn''t we demonize Hillary, like CBS is (clearly) attempting to demonize Ron Paul? I''m suprised CBS doesn''t Photoshop some devil horns on top of his head in that worst possible photograph they always use of him. The fact is, folks, no candidate can control who does, and who doesn''t donate money to their campaign. Candidates can only return money when they discover that it has been somehow donated illegaly. However, Ron Paul doesn''t staff his campaign with CRIMINALS LIKE HILLARY does.
Reply to this comment
See all 30 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs