Posted on 10/19/2011 7:52:37 PM PDT by Fred
Poll Date: 10/12-10/17, 2011
Poll Method: Direct Email and Automated Calls
Poll Sample: 844 Republican voters in Texas
Margin of Error: +/- 3%
| Candidate | Graph | Percent |
| Herman Cain | |
33% |
| Ron Paul |  |
19% |
|
| Rick Perry |  |
18% |
|
|
Mitt Romney |  |
7% |
| Newt Gingrich |  |
5% |
| Gary Johnson | |
3% |
| John Huntsman |
|
 |
3% |
| Michele Bachmann |  |
1% |
| Rick Santorum |  |
1% |
| Buddy Roemer | |
|
1% |
| Fred Karger | |
0% |
|
| ||
| Undecided |  |
7% |
The bar graph accurately reflects actual poll responses.
This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. Azimuth polling is a non-partisan polling company.
What I found next would greatly suggest to me that Azimuth Research Group and Azimuth Polls exist to as a propaganda arm for Ron Paul, even if indirectly by his supporters. I am not sure how much Ron Paul knows about the poll in the blog he tweeted to his followers, but I found out some rather interesting information about them. The domain azimuthpolls.com is registered to Dave Nalle of Austin, TX. But who is Dave Nalle? Dave Nalle is a Ron Paul supporter and is Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group that promotes Libertarianism within the Republican Party. In fact, if you go there, you’ll see an article written by Dave Nalle entitled “Don’t Believe the Hype. Meet the Real Rick Perry.” The RLC also endorses just one current elected official that is running for president. Any guess as to who that is? Yup. Ron Paul. You can also find a great many posts by Nalle which stakes out a lot of which you can hear from Rep. Paul.
http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/08/why-is-the-ron-paul-campaign-touting-suspicious-polling/
Perry will never be standing against Obama, so what is your point?
IOW, for some reason you wish to disbelieve this poll.
Whatever.
As a candidate you know you're in real trouble when you trail Rep. Ron Paul in your own home state in the latest polls. Now that is downright humiliating!
Exactly.
Back to trolling so soon?
Shame!
Ignoring the truth is where the shame is. So it’s on you, not me. But for you to keep the warm and fuzzy alive - call it what you want - feelings ahead of truth rules for the spiritually blinded.
My point? I dislike the mis-stating of what the poll actually says.
“If a war is really important enough to for us to fight then we need to use the might of our military to get a quick and decisive victory, instead of a war that last 10+ years.”
I don’t agree with much of what you wrote....I don’t see any good in Ron Paul at all.
However, I almost fully agree with the quoted statement above. I don’t want the U.S. to become isolationist or non-interventionist, but I do want us to have a clear purpose for engaging in any armed conflict. If we have good reason, and I will leave that up to elected officials being advised by military professionals, then as you say....we need to go for total war. IF the conflict isn’t worth committing us to totally annihilating the opposing force(s), then it probably isn’t worth fighting. I never have questioned the need or wisdom of being in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have only questioned the ridiculous rules of engagement placed upon our military to keep them from more decisive victory. So many times in Iraq those on convoys were reduced to being simply targets - not soldiers. As, I believe, Rush has said, “The military exists to kill enemies and break things.” General Sherman said during the Civil War that, “War is cruelty, there is no use in trying to reform it...the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” Also, we need to drop the facade of saying we are there to “liberate” a country. Because, I believe we should only be there if we intend to conquer it and set up a government friendly to our own. I cannot believe we are leaving Iraq with Sadr,et. al. still alive and causing problems. I cannot believe we are leaving it wide open to Iranian invasion. Not at all a satisfactory outcome in my thinking.
I haven’t ignored your demand. I’ve been looking for actual text. It’s been a matter of conversation in groups that Cain said publicly he would like to accept the VP position with any candidate except Perry. Any candidate. To most who heard those words, it indicated a willingness to accept the lower position if the top position became unattainable. Is a statement like that open to interpretation? I don’t know. In the ear of the listener? I don’t know. Supporters who are defensive about it shouldn’t be. He wants the job no matter which of the two.
I’d like to make it clear to you that I think Cain is admirable and talented. I don’t feel the same way about Huckabee with whom he shares a music/political/evangelical friendship. I know he is as Conservative on social issues as Conservatives require. I also know he belongs to one of the most liberal leaning Baptist churches in the nation and has working relationships with the kinds of black leaders who are loathed by Conservatives. He’s managed to separate philosophical and political differences while rising to Associate Pastor of that church.
My point in my original post was that he admires Romney, supported him in the past, and said he would serve as his VP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.