Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/cache.php on line 36

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/cache.php on line 384

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/classes.php on line 560

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/classes.php on line 684

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/query.php on line 21

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/theme.php on line 540
Your Pal Harvey » ron paul
Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/kses.php on line 627

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/kses.php on line 691

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/kses.php on line 692

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/kses.php on line 627

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/kses.php on line 691

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/kses.php on line 692

Entries Tagged as 'ron paul'


Strict Standards: mktime(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 12

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 21

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 23

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 25

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 26

Strict Standards: mktime(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 12

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 21

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 23

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 25

Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 26

new hampshire: believe it or not


Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /homepages/9/d229007368/htdocs/blog/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 82

after watching the tv coverage last night, i have been browsing the internet for an explanation as to hillary clinton’s victory over barack obama in new hampshire.

and i havent found anything satisfactory.

id like to first describe my reaction to the television coverage. msnbc and cnn announced through the day that a very high voter turnout was expected. poll stations were running out of ballots. younger people were voting. independents were going to decide the vote.

so went the story.

in other words, television, insofar as msnbc and cnn were concerned, expected another iowa.

The Independent expresses doubt in the polling that supported these conclusions.

Even if we agree that polling is flawed, we are still left without an explanation for the victory.

To re-phrase the question - what happened in new hampshire that was so different than what happened in iowa?

so far as television coverage was concerned, i was unable to tell the difference until the votes began to be counted.

Harvey doubts clinton’s sincerity. doesn’t everyone?

after the tallies began to come in, msnbc began to guess that women found clinton newly appealing, in a way they hadnt in iowa, as a result of her ‘tearing up’ during her explanation of the rigors of campaigning. tearing up. while she was holding a microphone, and before a dozen cameras. hillary clinton.

first, i have to say that she is the first whose tone becomes shrill and punishing at the debates. in other words, i wouldnt call her cool or countenanced or casually confident - really any of the things which bill clintons enemies could recognize as his strongest assets as a public speaker she aint got.

however.

the hillary clinton that we have come to know is the one who was keeping her husband up at night telling him all what he could do to push his career forward and chastening him for what he hadnt done already.

the hillary clinton we know as senator has voted just as opportunistically as her husband might have, but with none of the slip-and-slide panache.

for example: she voted for the war and could not get anti-war america to believe she was always on their side, as her husband could have done.

hillary clinton has never been enough of a salesman to be able to have her cake and eat it too.

i find her to be a woman whose actions are more defined by ambition than either her ability or principle, as i have yet to detect either in her.

so how is it that a woman who is normally so controlling and self-controlled could have ‘broken down’ before the cameras?

i dont believe that anything that has happened so far, this early in the primaries, could possibly have cut her to deeply enough that she would lose self-control at such a inopportune moment.

inopportune meaning: since when have tears equaled presidential material?

obama and the other candidates, in the rare occasions that they have made any criticism of her, have made a point of soft-pedaling their remarks.

unless i am mistaken, there have not been any dirty personal attacks on her so far.

from all appearances, all the other democratic contenders are doing what they can to compete with her while keeping the race from going sour, lest they lose their chance at a cabinet position or even a vice-presidency.

insofar as this last example is concerned, i tend to agree with the television version of events.

from the other camp: knowing that the republicans have been ruthless with her in the past - im thinking of when they burned her in effigy - the present republican scraping before clinton is hardly cause for her to publicly weep. (the implications of this may bear fruit later, however.)

and to stick with the topic she was addressing, the idea that a softball question about getting her hair done in the morning would press her buttons like that seems pretty far-fetched.

Is this when poll data becomes suspicious?

so when i was watching tv last night, cnn and msnbc put up exit poll stats showing that women came out for clinton in droves - a reversal of iowa where women preferred obama.

the explanation?

apparently it was clinton’s ‘breakdown’ or ‘tearing up’ - the choice expression varied, but the explanation remained the same.

i have alot of trouble believing that women - or anyone - would watch that boring, emotionally vacuous scene as it was replayed on television for some 36+ hours before the polls closed and decide that this makes clinton a more desirable candidate.

according to television, however, this was the story of new hampshire.

i want a better explanation.

i was sent several stories which you can find over on delicious, there on the right.

on that list are several stories which claim that this is a victory for the status quo against the voter.

…that the diebold electronic vote problems raised their ugly head again:

this one and this one compare machine (diebold) count to hand count.

look here for some excellent posters which graphically represent indignation for diebold and their role in election fraud.

this one comes from the ron paul camp.

…that implicate the democratic party (once again):

to wit, the AP informs us that

In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton leads with 187 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. She is followed by Obama with 89 delegates and Edwards with 50.

in sum

i am skeptical that a candidate with clintons charisma problems could have taken new hampshire with a pair of watery eyes.

if so, the implications for democracy are dire indeed.

do you know anyone who has decided they like the idea of clinton as president more since the iowa vote?

could, in other words, the television story of how it happened be true?

if not, what is a better explanation for the clinton victory in NH?

ok, ill stop asking because really what id like to do is find out what you think.

thanks for all your ideas.

all the best.

harvey.

Addendum:

according to the AP last week

The [new jersey] state Senate voted Thursday to approve delivering the state’s 15 electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote. The Assembly approved the measure in December and needs Gov. Jon S. Corzine’s signature to become law.

“The bill is subject to a thorough review, but Gov. Corzine has long been a supporter of this concept,” Corzine spokesman Jim Gardner said.